In congratulating Paula Goodhart on her appointment to the bench in County Court at Law # 1 the other day, I failed to also congratulate Natalie Flemming on being appointed to the bench in County Court at Law # 3. (NOTE: I have a good excuse. I'm on Paula's e-mail list, and I'm not on Natalie's, so I literally didn't get the memo).
Anyway, congratulations to both new Judges. I'm sure we are all looking forward to working with you in the future.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Natalie Flemming. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Natalie Flemming. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 19 Maret 2010
Minggu, 21 Februari 2010
The Vileness of Terry Lowry
In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm not a fan of Terry Lowry.
In the Harris County political system filled with people you love to hate, Lowry has distinguished himself as an almost cartoonish caricature of all that is wrong with the system, and the Republican Party seems to have no qualms about embracing him as their own.
Lowry publishes his FOR PROFIT crappy little LINKLetter that goes out to all Republican voters and he also buys time on a radio slot where he can spew out his "values" on a program called "What's UP".
And of course, under the 1st Amendment, I support his right to do so, even though I recognize the fact that he is a schmuck.
Lowry sprinkles in "articles" in his endorsement-laden "LINKLetter" which should offend even the most conservative of Republicans.
In his latest issue, he opens up addressing Pat Robertson's idiotic statement last month that the Haitian Earthquake was "the manifestation of God's punishment".
Does Lowry condemn what Robertson said?
Nope. He discusses it though, pointing out that "Back in 1791 some Haitians banded together and made a 'pack with the Devil' promising him their souls if he would help drive out the French". He never disagrees with it.
Are there really Republicans out there that believe publishing this crap is somehow helpful to their Party?
But the more amusing part of the LINKLetter is Lowry's article on "How are Endorsements Made?". The reality on how Lowry's endorsements are made is that Lowry opens a bidding war for ads in the mailer. Whoever buys the biggest ad wins his endorsement (for what it's worth).
But Lowry's "explanation" of how he makes his endorsements gives him a real chance to shine as the hate-mongering biggot that he is. He begins the article by lamenting how it more difficult to make endorsements now than it was 20 years ago when all you had to do was figure out if a candidates was "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Pro-family vs. Pro-homosexual, and liberal vs. conservative".
He continues on:
"Some candidates even sought and received endorsements from gay and lesbian organizations. This cycle has a practicing gay seeking to represent the Republican Party. He has even brought his partner to various functions. I will defend his right to run, but I will never endorse him nor encourage you to vote for him."
And his definition of a "Wise" candidate? "They avoid even answering Pro-homosexual questionnaires."
He also is kind enough to publish his suggestions for resolutions to take to your Precinct Chairman such as "We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and natural woman."
Okey dokey, then. Are y'all getting the picture on why I said I wouldn't be endorsing anyone who bought advertising with Lowry?
So congratulations to Rachel Palmer, Danny Dexter, Glenn Devlin, Natalie Flemming, Jared Woodfill and others for your full page ads and your financial support to a rodent like Lowry and his hateful beliefs. (NOTE: And don't forget Pat Lykos' ad from 2008!) I didn't give any money to any of your campaigns, but if I had, I'd be demanding it back right about now.
And by the way, members of the Harris County Republican Party, you might want to be taking note of the fact that you got slammed in November 2008 because the Democrats schooled you on Public Relations and the Power of Inclusion.
If you want to make a significant step in the right direction for your party and keep some excellent candidates on the bench in the future, you could make a great statement by disavowing Terry Lowry and all that he stands for.
Just a thought.
In the Harris County political system filled with people you love to hate, Lowry has distinguished himself as an almost cartoonish caricature of all that is wrong with the system, and the Republican Party seems to have no qualms about embracing him as their own.
Lowry publishes his FOR PROFIT crappy little LINKLetter that goes out to all Republican voters and he also buys time on a radio slot where he can spew out his "values" on a program called "What's UP".
And of course, under the 1st Amendment, I support his right to do so, even though I recognize the fact that he is a schmuck.
Lowry sprinkles in "articles" in his endorsement-laden "LINKLetter" which should offend even the most conservative of Republicans.
In his latest issue, he opens up addressing Pat Robertson's idiotic statement last month that the Haitian Earthquake was "the manifestation of God's punishment".
Does Lowry condemn what Robertson said?
Nope. He discusses it though, pointing out that "Back in 1791 some Haitians banded together and made a 'pack with the Devil' promising him their souls if he would help drive out the French". He never disagrees with it.
Are there really Republicans out there that believe publishing this crap is somehow helpful to their Party?
But the more amusing part of the LINKLetter is Lowry's article on "How are Endorsements Made?". The reality on how Lowry's endorsements are made is that Lowry opens a bidding war for ads in the mailer. Whoever buys the biggest ad wins his endorsement (for what it's worth).
But Lowry's "explanation" of how he makes his endorsements gives him a real chance to shine as the hate-mongering biggot that he is. He begins the article by lamenting how it more difficult to make endorsements now than it was 20 years ago when all you had to do was figure out if a candidates was "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Pro-family vs. Pro-homosexual, and liberal vs. conservative".
He continues on:
"Some candidates even sought and received endorsements from gay and lesbian organizations. This cycle has a practicing gay seeking to represent the Republican Party. He has even brought his partner to various functions. I will defend his right to run, but I will never endorse him nor encourage you to vote for him."
And his definition of a "Wise" candidate? "They avoid even answering Pro-homosexual questionnaires."
He also is kind enough to publish his suggestions for resolutions to take to your Precinct Chairman such as "We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and natural woman."
Okey dokey, then. Are y'all getting the picture on why I said I wouldn't be endorsing anyone who bought advertising with Lowry?
So congratulations to Rachel Palmer, Danny Dexter, Glenn Devlin, Natalie Flemming, Jared Woodfill and others for your full page ads and your financial support to a rodent like Lowry and his hateful beliefs. (NOTE: And don't forget Pat Lykos' ad from 2008!) I didn't give any money to any of your campaigns, but if I had, I'd be demanding it back right about now.
And by the way, members of the Harris County Republican Party, you might want to be taking note of the fact that you got slammed in November 2008 because the Democrats schooled you on Public Relations and the Power of Inclusion.
If you want to make a significant step in the right direction for your party and keep some excellent candidates on the bench in the future, you could make a great statement by disavowing Terry Lowry and all that he stands for.
Just a thought.
Minggu, 24 Januari 2010
The Race for County Court at Law # 3 (Republican)
The race to replace Don Jackson for Judge of County Court at Law # 3 has a larger number of potential candidates than most other races with four candidates vying for the position just from the Republican side. I only know two of the candidates personally. I hear nice things about a third one. And I have no idea why the fourth one is running other than the fact that she really really likes being judge.
Cary Hart is a former Harris County prosecutor and current defense attorney. Joe Licata is a former prosecutor out of Florida and a long-time defense attorney. Natalie Flemming is a former prosecutor who used to do some visiting judge stints on the County Court circuit. Sharolyn Wood is a former CIVIL court judge who lost her bench in 2008 and is apparently some sort of Republican darling (which really irritates me with Republicans).
The Sharolyn Wood principle is probably what bugs me the most out of these partisan judicial elections. According to Mark Bennett's article that I linked to above, she held a Civil Bench since 1985 and lost it in 2008. Upon losing, she cited some sort of idea that incumbent judges were entitled to their positions and people shouldn't run against them. That's pretty offensive in my opinion.
Nonetheless, former-Judge Wood is looking to reclaim a bench (any bench) and has decided to move over into the criminal arena to find one. That's not a good idea. I tried a murder case one time in front of a visitng civil court judge. It was disastrous. Luckily, I did end up winning the case, but the trial took forever because we kept having to go locate sitting criminal court judges to come explain things to the visiting civil judge. It is apples and oranges when it comes to civil and criminal law. If the Republican Party doesn't realize this and they are putting their support behind Wood, they are sending a message that they don't give a crap about qualifications anymore (NOTE: see also, The Lykos Principle).
My buddy, Joe Licata, is a guy that I've known since very early on in my career at the D.A.'s Office when I was assigned to County Court at Law # 10. Joe did a lot of work in that court, and he couldn't have been any nicer to deal with. He's been practicing law for over 30 years and was a prosecutor in Florida in the early '80s. He has been in Texas for a couple of decades now and handles the fugitive docket detail in Judge Ross' court. He certainly has the qualifications and demeanor to be a good judge.
I don't know Natalie Flemming at all, but the people that I've talked to who do know her have nothing but nice things to say about her. She has a website up on Facebook, but I haven't figured out how to link to it here without putting up my own personal Facebook stuff (which I don't necessarily want to share with ALL of you!) As I noted above, she's a former prosecutor (up until 1994) before leaving HCDA. Her Facebook webpage lists that she worked as a visiting county court judge (which one can do without ever having been elected to be a judge). Her website doesn't mention what she has been doing lately and it doesn't say whether or not she has ever done any defense work.
In this race, however, my support goes to Cary Hart.
Cary was a Misdemeanor Chief prosecutor when I first started at the office, and her husband, Brad, was my first chief when I started. She was a prosecutor at the Harris County D.A.'s Office for 11 years and worked in the Misdemeanor Division, Felony Division, Justice of the Peace Division, Child Abuse, Juvenile, Special Crimes' Major Fraud, and the Asset Forfeiture Division. Since leaving the Office, she has been in business for herself and is a successful defense attorney. In addition to her defense work, she also serves part-time as a municipal prosecutor with the City of Humble, where she focuses on the juvenile docket.
Cary has lengthy jury trial experience, and in addition to that, she has the right demeanor to be a judge. She is one of the most even-tempered and kind hearted people that I know. She takes her job duties extremely seriously and will devote herself to doing the right thing and making the right decisions if elected judge.
Cary Hart is a former Harris County prosecutor and current defense attorney. Joe Licata is a former prosecutor out of Florida and a long-time defense attorney. Natalie Flemming is a former prosecutor who used to do some visiting judge stints on the County Court circuit. Sharolyn Wood is a former CIVIL court judge who lost her bench in 2008 and is apparently some sort of Republican darling (which really irritates me with Republicans).
The Sharolyn Wood principle is probably what bugs me the most out of these partisan judicial elections. According to Mark Bennett's article that I linked to above, she held a Civil Bench since 1985 and lost it in 2008. Upon losing, she cited some sort of idea that incumbent judges were entitled to their positions and people shouldn't run against them. That's pretty offensive in my opinion.
Nonetheless, former-Judge Wood is looking to reclaim a bench (any bench) and has decided to move over into the criminal arena to find one. That's not a good idea. I tried a murder case one time in front of a visitng civil court judge. It was disastrous. Luckily, I did end up winning the case, but the trial took forever because we kept having to go locate sitting criminal court judges to come explain things to the visiting civil judge. It is apples and oranges when it comes to civil and criminal law. If the Republican Party doesn't realize this and they are putting their support behind Wood, they are sending a message that they don't give a crap about qualifications anymore (NOTE: see also, The Lykos Principle).
My buddy, Joe Licata, is a guy that I've known since very early on in my career at the D.A.'s Office when I was assigned to County Court at Law # 10. Joe did a lot of work in that court, and he couldn't have been any nicer to deal with. He's been practicing law for over 30 years and was a prosecutor in Florida in the early '80s. He has been in Texas for a couple of decades now and handles the fugitive docket detail in Judge Ross' court. He certainly has the qualifications and demeanor to be a good judge.
I don't know Natalie Flemming at all, but the people that I've talked to who do know her have nothing but nice things to say about her. She has a website up on Facebook, but I haven't figured out how to link to it here without putting up my own personal Facebook stuff (which I don't necessarily want to share with ALL of you!) As I noted above, she's a former prosecutor (up until 1994) before leaving HCDA. Her Facebook webpage lists that she worked as a visiting county court judge (which one can do without ever having been elected to be a judge). Her website doesn't mention what she has been doing lately and it doesn't say whether or not she has ever done any defense work.
In this race, however, my support goes to Cary Hart.
Cary was a Misdemeanor Chief prosecutor when I first started at the office, and her husband, Brad, was my first chief when I started. She was a prosecutor at the Harris County D.A.'s Office for 11 years and worked in the Misdemeanor Division, Felony Division, Justice of the Peace Division, Child Abuse, Juvenile, Special Crimes' Major Fraud, and the Asset Forfeiture Division. Since leaving the Office, she has been in business for herself and is a successful defense attorney. In addition to her defense work, she also serves part-time as a municipal prosecutor with the City of Humble, where she focuses on the juvenile docket.
Cary has lengthy jury trial experience, and in addition to that, she has the right demeanor to be a judge. She is one of the most even-tempered and kind hearted people that I know. She takes her job duties extremely seriously and will devote herself to doing the right thing and making the right decisions if elected judge.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)