The Texas Supreme Court fails to take care of the people's business!

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

In a shocking indictment of the Texas Supreme Court's failure to take care of business for the people of Texas, Janet Elliott of the San Antonio Express-News reported about "Cases piling up before justices":

At a time when the Texas Supreme Court's case backlog has reached record levels, Justice Paul Green was spending Friday driving to Corpus Christi to speak to a group of appeals lawyers. "It's 40 (degrees) and raining and I'm driving four hours to Corpus Christi," Green said from his cell phone. "Yes, I've got stuff to do at the office, but some of us like to do this."

Green, who wrote the fewest opinions — four — of the high court's nine justices during the 2007 fiscal year, said he thinks it's important to get out of the office and talk about the court's work. "If all of a sudden I said I'll just stay in my chambers and work on opinions, I don't think people would like that," Green said, adding that he has a "bunch of cases" that are ready to be issued.

Jim Jordan, a Democrat who is challenging Republican Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, has a different opinion.

He said Green needs to take care of the court's business before he travels to "schmooze" with lawyers. When parties in a legal dispute get to the Supreme Court, they already have been through an expensive and time-consuming trial and appeals process, said Jordan, a Dallas County trial judge.

"Texans don't need to be told they need to take a number and get in line and wait," Jordan said. "These kinds of delays create a distrust in the legal system."

At the end of 2007, the court left more cases pending than ever before. The court had heard arguments but not issued rulings in 111 cases, including 36 that were more than a year old and 13 others more than 2 years old.

Jefferson said he's concerned about the backlog but denied it's because the justices aren't working hard. He said the court disposed of a record number of cases last year, but also accepted more cases for review, a trend since 2005.

Green is one of three justices facing ethics complaints about payments to themselves from their campaign accounts for travel. Green reimbursed himself nearly $16,000 for 272 trips between Austin and San Antonio, his former hometown.

[sonias]

1. Take a number and get in line to wait

Isn't that the truth. If you're not big business with deep pockets (who regularly contribute to the justices anyway), don't think you'll get your day in court here.

And as we've seen these "justices", and I do use that term loosely, have their own ethical problems as we've seen repeatedly in the press.


:grr:


Sonia

[Larry L. Burks]

2. Judges that take bribes can be judges no more.

What do you mean! You can bribe a Judge. Sure
Happens all of the time.
How does this work? And how you can catch them with their hands in the cookie jar.
Judges other than being Judges. Are politicians.
They are elected. ( some are appointed )
When ever they run for office. They are allow to take campaign contributions.
They are forced by law to report the finances to the state bored of electron.
A list that states where they got their money from. Form who and how much. In order to run for election.
This list becomes part of the public record.
People that make campaign contributions. Use the money payed to a judge as a tax write off. It's reported to the IRS.
Lawyers and corporation give large amounts of money to help judges get elected.
If they have a cast that is going to go before the courts.
They manipulate the court system So that their case will be heard before the very same judge that they payed large sums of money to.
The corporation gives the money to the lawyer who in turn puts the money in to his own slush fund. But when the lawyer takes out the money to give to the Judges re electron fund. The lawyer states that the money was not any way part of any money that the corporation gave to them. When the lawyer puts the money into his slush fund. The money gets laundered.
Where they usually catch them at is .
The judge files his financial stated in October.
Then files his Taxes in February of next year. He doesn't report the many to the IRS.
The corporation's taxes show that he gave the lawyer $100 dollars On this date.
The lawyer Taxes show that he gave $100 dollars to this drudge on this date.
The judges financial statement show that he got this money on this date.
The judges taxes show that he got no money at all From that Lawyer.
And four months later. The judge hears a case in which the corporation and the lawyer is names in.
They win against all odds.
Firsts time. Every time.
It's called " The good old boys system ".
Do other lawyer know what is happening In the courts In Texas. Sure.
Why don't they report them?
If they move to de bench a Judge or disbar lawyer for bribery.
And this is what it is.
These lawyer make campaign contribution to all Judges that are running for election.
A Judge that has taken money from a lawyer that has payed money to a Judges electron campaign.
That Judge is bared form every hearing a case before his court in which that lawyer is named. Because their is conflict of interest.
It's unethical. Only up to a point.
If that Judge fail to report the money payed to him for his electron campaign.
The money becomes not a contribution to his election campaign. It is now a bribe.
Are Judges being bribed here in Texas. Sure. Happens every day.
Why don't the other lawyers report them?
two reasons.
They want to be part of the Good old bay system and win cases
And.
If they do report them.
They will never win another case before any court in Texas again.
They punish their own.
It's like the mob. Once you have made the grade. And you are in.
They never will let you out.
This is our court system in America today.
They are not true courts. They are kangaroo courts.
It is all for show. They are not real courts. They are not real judges.
How would I know this?
Any time that you stand before a Federal Judge. And state that you are a natural born U.S citizen. With all right under the U.S Constitution are in tack.
And you ask the Federal Judges To honor his oath of office. And preserve your inalienable right. Your right to vote.
And he does not.
This act makes a profound statement.
The U. S. constitution is no more.
It Is the will and consent of the American people and the U.S. Constitution that gives him his privilege to set on the bench.
If the Federal Judge does not recognize or honor the U.S. Constitution.
The sacred trust. The sacred bond. The sacred word. The will and consent of the American people.
The contract that was writhen in blood. And made in good faith.
Is broken.
With out that document being in tack. And in full force.
It is the law of the land.
If it is no more.
The laws are. There are no laws.
This means that there can not be a court.
There can be no Judges.
There can be no rulings that can come forth from any person that is impersonating a Judges.
With out the will and consent of the American People.
And the U.S. Constitution.
A Judge doesn't have jurisdiction to sit in a court of law.
I don't know who these people are.
But one thing that I do know.
Their not Judges. They don't have our will or consent of the American People.
And with out the will and consent of the American People.
They can be Judges no more.
There is a little known law on the books that they don't want you to know about that states.
If you any reason that you fill that the judge that is before your.
Is un fit to sit in that seat. For any reason.
He no longer honors the U.S. Constitution And all your right there in.
If He does not have your will and Consent.
At any time with in your case proceeding.
You tell your lawyer to excuse the Judge.
And if he does not.
You can stand up.
Tell your Lawyer. Your fired.
Tell the judge that you are now representing your self.
And ask the Judge. To excuse his self from your case.
He is judge no more.
And the courts are very strict about this law.
If that Judge does not stop every thing that he is doing.
And state that he is excusing his self from the cast.
He will never sit as Judge before a court of law in America again.
I know about the Law.
I watch a lawyer do this one time in a court room.
It's real.
I have used it.
You can go through as many Judges as you like till you find one that will honor his oath of office. And give you a fair hearing.

[Czolgosz]

5. If this is about Susan Criss, I think it's a largely exaggerated claim

http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/206995-criss-campaign-cash

[sonias]

3. Judges wobbling off the straight and narrow

AAS Editorial 1/27/08
Judges wobbling off the straight and narrow

By The Editorial Board
Sunday, January 27, 2008, 06:58 PM

To ensure faith in the integrity of the courts, judges should avoid arousing public questions about their personal and professional behavior. Several justices on the Texas Supreme Court need to be more careful.

(snip)
Medina has another problem: a violation of a state ethics rule that bars a judge from spending campaign funds on personal uses. Medina had used $57,000 in campaign funds to reimburse himself for driving between Austin and his home in Spring. A lawyer for Medina said he had relied on an accountant for advice on whether he could use the money for personal travel between his home and court, and would pay it back.

Two other justices, Nathan Hecht and Paul Green, also have been accused of using campaign funds to commute to their home cities. But they say they spent the money legitimately on campaign travel.

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, like Green from San Antonio, said he cannot personally account for all of his colleague’s 272 trips to San Antonio since 2005, but that Green made many trips there at his request for court-related business. And it’s natural, he said, that judges - who are elected - would travel often to their political bases.

Be more careful? We're giving them a warning are we?

Sonia

[sonias]

4. Supreme Embarrassment

Burka blog 1/28/08
Supreme Embarrassment
posted by Paul Burka at 8:51 AM

The Texas Supreme Court has become a public spectacle. It's bad enough that a majority of the Court performs as a wholly owned subsidiary of Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Now it's apparent that a third of the judges -- Nathan Hecht, Paul Green, and David Medina -- have no compunction about flouting ethics rules by using campaign funds as a piggybank for their personal travel to and from work. Texas Watch has filed complaints against all three judges with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Everybody who itemizes income tax deductions knows this basic rule about travel expenses: You can't claim a tax deduction for commuting to and from your job. The same reasoning ought to apply to using campaign funds to pay for commuting expenses. In fact, it does. The Ethics Commission has ruled one this point. Explicitly. Here is language from Opinion No. 133:

It's a long blog post but a good read. The "Supreme Embarrassment" guild are so busted.

Sonia