Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Harris County DA race: Mike Anderson – Justice? You mean "just us", right?

by

Mike Anderson

I have to admit that when I first saw Felicia Cravens’ complaint against Judge Mike Anderson, I was half, oh well, and half, hey, that is Judge Denise Bradley’s courtroom, I need to warn her. I mean, I’ve seen this stuff so often through the years that I’ve come to accept it. Yeah, I know shame on me and good on Felicia for not. And as for Judge Bradley, she had been very nice to me during her campaign and I thought that I was returning the favor. Although I was never able to contact her directly, I was able to get word to her through an intermediary.

Lot of good that did. I couldn’t have protected her because Judge Anderson himself hung her out to dry. In a blog post on Chron.com, either Chris Moran or Brian Rogers got this from Judge Anderson:

“Whether it’s the Cub Scouts or the South Texas College of Law doing mock trials or (Houston Bar Association) doing (continuing legal education), those are public courtrooms and you seek permission from the judge, which I did,” Anderson said. “It’s just been customary at the courthouse, for the 30 years I’ve been around, that if you want to use a courtroom, you ask the judge.”

He said Bradley even signed the group in and watched them go through the metal detectors at security.

Let’s review the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 2, B.     A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

Great. Wonderful. Now both judges are guilty of judicial misconduct. Sad state of affairs down at the courthouse. And this is what people want to go back to?

No, Judge Anderson (and Judge Bradley), you don’t just “ask the judge” if you want to use a courtroom. Here is how it is done:

SECTION 7. NON-OFFICIAL USE OF PUBLIC AREAS

7.1 In accordance with this section, those Public Areas suitable for meetings or gatherings may be made available for Non-Official Use after regular business hours provided such Public Areas are not needed for official business. However, such Non-Official Use may not be scheduled between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m..

7.2 Any Entity desiring to meet or gather in such Public Areas for a Non-Official Use shall submit a written request at least ten days prior to the initial proposed use. Each request shall be valid for a period not to exceed ninety days. All requests shall be submitted to the FPM Customer Service Section at 1310 Prairie, Suite 140, Houston, Texas 77002. The request shall provide: (1) the full name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the Entity, and the Person representing the Entity, desiring to make the Non-Official Use; (2) a specific description of the Public Area to be used; (3) a general description of the nature of the Non-Official Use (i.e., meeting) and the expected number of participants; (4) the dates and hours during which the Public Area is to be used; and (5) a promise to pay any cleanup or other costs.

7.3 Use is allocated by the County or District on a first-come, first-served basis, and is subject to the availability of the requested Public Area.

7.4 The Public Areas provided herein are primarily for official business, and in the event of a conflict, the need and use for official business shall take priority.

7.5 The County or District reserves the right to preempt or interrupt the scheduled use of the Public Area if the Public Area is needed to conduct official business.

7.6 A Person who makes Non-Official Use of a Public Area Surrounding a Public Building may hold, carry, or display as much material as that Person can hold, carry, or display on his or her Person at all times. Any excess material or any material found in the Public Area after the Person has left shall be removed.

7.7 A Person may use a portable chair or table while holding, carrying, or displaying material, but a Person may not place articles in or on Premises that give the impression of permanent or semi-permanent occupancy or residency (for example, a bed, cot, filing cabinet, sofa, desk, heater, refrigerator, stove, or portable bathroom facilities). Any excess articles shall be removed.

7.8 Activities may not interfere with or disrupt the conduct of official business, or interfere with the free ingress and egress to the Premises.

And here are copies of the forms that are supposed to be filed ten days prior to expected use:

Reservation
Indemnity

 

Perhaps judges do not have to sign in when they enter the courthouse on weekends because neither Judge Bradley’s or Judge Anderson’s names are on the log in sheet.

Sign In

Makes you wonder: who else entered the courthouse that day without signing in? Hard to believe that Judge Anderson would film an ad without his sleazy consultant around. I half expected to see the members of the 185th Runaway Grand Jury on that list.

Let’s go back to Cravens’ complaint:

Anderson’s use of the 262nd State District Criminal Courtroom to film his campaign advertisements is a clear violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct because it undermines, rather than promotes, public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and clearly involves a judge lending the prestige of judicial office to advance their private interests.

I pay my taxes so government can carry out a few narrow, legitimate purposes. Establishing a judiciary to promote justice is one of them; but providing a no-cost set that politicians can use to film campaign commercials is not.

And she is exactly right.

I guess what bothers me most is not that Judge Anderson broke the rules and didn’t follow the law, although that is not a good thing. What bothers me the most is that Felicia filed her complaint over a week ago. Judge Anderson had plenty of time to huddle up with his consultant, figure out a game plan, and do the right thing by reimbursing the county for the cost of his use of the 262nd courtroom and issuing an apology.

But no, that isn’t what he does. He defiantly claims that he did nothing wrong even as the facts are staring him straight in the face. Not only is he defiant, he implicates another judge to go down with him.

Why? I’m glad you asked. I think it is clear that Judge Anderson has a pattern of doing what he wants, regardless of what should be done. Supporting Judge Bill Harmon’s dismissal of DWI cases rather than have the defendants go through a rigorous intervention program. Allowing felony DWI’s to be pled down to misdemeanors at the same time his is publicly admonishing the District Attorney for an intervention program for first time offenders.  Wanting the courthouse to revert to the good ol’ days of the frathouse.

Does Judge Anderson understand the meaning of justice? Or does it mean “just us” to him and his friends?

If you haven’t voted yet, think about that.

179th District Criminal Court: Kristin Guiney is the only choice

by

Kristin Guiney

Here I go again, stepping into a race down at the Harris County Courthouse. But when you block out all the noise in the race for Judge of the 179th District Criminal Court, Kristin Guiney stands head and shoulders above her opponent.

This is a nasty race for two reasons. One is the passion that comes from the people that work at the Harris County Courthouse and can’t imagine that anyone would disagree with them on anything. The second is that Kristin’s opponent in this race, Lana Shadwick, is a long time participant in Republican Party circles. And the people in those circles are just as passionate as those that work in the courthouse in that if you haven’t been working side by side with them to get Republicans elected, you shouldn’t be running for office.

The combination of these two passionate camps leads to one of those races that you really want to steer clear of if you aren’t in either camp. But, as luck would have it, we do have a vote and we must make a choice because there are only two people in the race, one from each camp. And as I said above, if you can block out the noise coming from the two camps and just review their qualifications, it is clear that Kristin Guiney is the right choice.

So then, what are their qualifications? Here is a table of their education and work history:

But, many say, Kristin Guiney has spent most of her career with one employer, the Harris County District Attorney’s office, while Lana Shadwick has had a variety of jobs. Shouldn’t a judge have a broad range of experience?

Well, only if all things were equal. This is a criminal court and Lana Shadwick simply doesn’t have the experience necessary to judge criminal cases. She has never prosecuted a criminal case and has only has a handful of criminal cases in which she was the defense attorney. That is a far cry from Kristin Guiney’s experience in the criminal justice system. Let’s look at Kristin Guiney’s career at the HCDAO:

  • Supervise and train prosecutors assigned to court
  • Responsible for the handling of all capital cases
  • Appointed by First Assistant to Committee on Discovery Procedures
  • Prepare arrest and search warrants
  • Prepare and present cases to be taken directly to Grand Jury
  • Present probable cause to magistrate on felony and misdemeanor cases
  • Prosecuted cases involving physical and sexual abuse of children.
  • Worked closely with the law enforcement personnel and therapists from the Children’s Assessment Center
  • Tried over 80 jury trial cases including four non death capital cases
  • Spearheaded committee and prepared presentations for Proposals to Commissioners Court requesting additional personnel and salary increases

Her opponent simply cannot match that in her career. Those first two are especially important because it shows that Kristin Guiney was well respected by her peers and her supervisors.

For this voter, it is important that a criminal court judge understand capital murder and the death penalty. Although I wish that Kristen hadn’t given Terry Lowry $11,075 this cycle, the least I can do is point you to her interviews with Terry on capital punishment. I don’t like a lot of what Terry does (okay, most) but the truth is that he is a pretty decent interviewer of candidates for judicial positions. He asks the right questions and gets out of the way so that the candidate has free rein to answer them So I urge you to listen to Kristin Guiney talk about capital punishment.

Her opponent lists a capital murder appeal on her website that she claims to have handled, but I cannot find any supporting documents for that claim. Criminal District Court judges exercise daily discretion in serious cases that directly impact public safety. The discretion extends from setting bonds to approving plea bargains, supervising probationers, conducting jury trials, and assessing punishment. Because she has never handled a criminal case in a trial court, she has no experience with bail, reviewing search warrants or any knowldege of probation programs.  How can she possibly be expected to handle hundreds of cases a month? The position of judge should not be a learning on the job experience.

Look, I like Lana, I really do. She is funny, smart, and has a smile bigger than Texas. If she were running for a family court judge position, I’d support her in a heartbeat. But she isn’t running for a family court bench.

For this criminal district court bench, it is clear to me that Kristin Guiney is the clear choice. I hope you take the time to study the two candidates in this race because if you do, and can block out the noise, I think you’ll agree with me.

Harris County Sheriff: Louis Guthrie is my choice

by

Louis Guthrie

This is an interesting race. With the exception of one candidate, everyone has been positive and running on their own merit. And even that candidate is positive in public appearances, using surrogates to slime his opponents in the background. But when you finally sort through the records, two guys stand out: Louis Guthrie and Harold Heuszel. And in my view, Louis Guthrie emerges as a clear choice for Harris County voters.

As we have discussed previously, Louis Guthrie was a high achiever and on the fast track until the current sheriff, Adrian Garcia, figured out a way to eliminate him as possible future competition. Only he didn’t succeed, as noted. Sucks to be Sheriff Garcia come November.

Louis Guthrie is a natural born leader of men, of that I have no doubt. But what sets him apart is his ability to triage a crisis, formulate a plan, and then execute it with success. I talked to a dozen or more law enforcement officers that had been under his command at one time or another – to a person, they had positive things to say about his leadership. Neither he or his campaign consultant (I wouldn’t have listened to that loser anyway) directed me to these deputies, I found them on my own. And folks, when the troops that you command support you, that is a big deal.

Another thing that drew my support was his frankness about the budget situation at the Harris County Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner’s Court is going to have to find a way to allocate more money for this vital part of our county law enforcement. Both Louis and Harold acknowledged this. Because of Louis’ long track record with the Commissioners, I think that he will have the best chance at securing the necessary increase in funding. I know, I know, I’m a Republican and we just cut, cut, cut. That is not true. As small government conservatives, we simply want the best government for the lowest possible cost. I trust that Louis is committed to that goal based upon his record.

I also like that one of his plans includes a large increase in the Reserve unit – and I hope that he will draw upon Harold’s expertise in that area. Louis also has very detailed plans for neighborhood command centers that I like and he stresses the need to supply his troops with the resources that they need to get the job done.

Louis has a forward looking vision for the department that I think will mesh well with District Attorney Pat Lykos‘ vision for county law enforcement and I think they will be a dynamic team to lead the Republican ballot in Harris County in November. It is true that many Lykos supporters support another candidate, one that makes the traditional claim of cutting the budget without specifying where and when, so Louis will have to work on that crowd. But once they realize that he is right about the budget, and he most certainly is, I think they will make the leap and vote for the guy that I think has a huge upside, is fearless in the face of adversity, and gives Republicans an opportunity to put a real lawman in that post.

I hope you join me in voting for Louis Guthrie for Harris County Sheriff.

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 Sheriff candidate Louis Guthrie wins appeal

by

Louis Guthrie

I told you earlier that it had been a good week for Louis Guthrie. In addition to winning the poll taken after the Harris County DA Debate this past Thursday, Mr. Guthrie finally sees a light at the end of the dark tunnel that current Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia put him in for the past three years. Judge Caroline Baker (a great person, btw) overturned the decision of the Civil Service Commission that upheld Guthrie’s politically motivated firing.

 

Press release from Louis Guthrie:

Following a bench trial in District Court, Louis Guthrie was vindicated, and the Sheriff’s Civil Service Commission’s decision to uphold his firing was set aside and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court’s Order. What does that mean? It means that after the Court found the Civil Service Commission, and vis-à-vis the Sheriff, had violated the Texas Government Code, the decision in violation of State Law was set aside. Louis should get his job back along with back pay and benefits.

The trial was confined to the record of the Commission’s hearing on May 12, 2010. In that trial, all the Sheriff’s Office’s warts were revealed; Major Silvio admitting one of Guthrie’s alleged violations of policy was in fact the accepted policy and practice of the Department, (This was the same Major Silvio who had previously testified in another hearing that he could not name any violations of policy by Louis Guthrie), the misrepresentations of law by the County Attorney to the Commission, and unbelievably, the concealing of evidence.

The concealing of evidence was probably the most disturbing thing the Court heard. Not only were audio interviews of witnesses hidden, but video recovered from the scene was not even mentioned in the report. When asked why he hid evidence in this matter, the handpicked Internal Affairs Investigator testified under oath, “There wasn’t anything on there that would indicate that Mr. Guthrie did anything wrong.” Translation: The decision to fire him has been made and we don’t want to present evidence that shows he did nothing wrong. Had this concealing of evidence occurred in a criminal case, the investigator could be charged with a 3rd degree felony.

After showing repeated violations by the Sheriff’s Office and the Civil Service Commission of their own rules, state law, and the U.S. Constitution, Guthrie’s attorney John Denholm told the Court, at some point the law has to mean something.

Because the Commission’s decision was to uphold the Sheriff’s illegal firing of Guthrie was clearly in violation of the law, the case returns to the Civil Service Commission, which should order Louis Guthrie’s reinstatement with back pay and benefits. That is if they follow the law….

If they follow the law. I don’t know if the Civil Service Commission members are the same as last time or not. But if they are, I have no doubt that Martha Wong will do the right thing and reinstate Mr. Guthrie with full back pay. I’d venture to say that if the Sheriff’s department hadn’t withheld evidence the first time, Martha would have ruled in Mr. Guthrie’s favor. This witch-hunt has hurt the Guthrie family financially and emotionally – while the emotions will take time to heal, there should be no delay in restoring his family financially. Plus, giving him his job back now would give him a leg up when he moves to the big office after booting Garcia in November.

Hopefully, Judge Baker’s ruling will stop Mr. Guthrie’s opponents from using his bogus firing against him: they have been using it throughout the primary season. We will get a chance to see their true character – will they spread the word of his vindication? Or will they act the same as the media and ignore Judge Baker’s ruling?

Website: LouisGuthrie.com

Facebook: VoteGuthrie

 

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.