The Appalling D’Metria Benson


D’Metria Benson

The spectacle of lawyers or potential litigants directly handing over money to judicial candidates should be avoided if the public is to have faith in the impartiality of its judiciary. The solicitation ban aims squarely at the conduct most likely to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary: personal requests for money by judges and judicial candidates.    Justice Roberts.

2013 – 2015 Donors Below

D'Metria Benson

D’Metria Benson Five Campaign Fund Raisers

D'Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge By Far

DMetriaBenson_Campaign_Contributors-LARGE DMetria_Benson_Campaign_Contributors=Understand-D'Metria_Benson

What makes all of this so appalling is the genuine harm D’Metria has done during her  tenure in CCL One.

Not everyone can afford an appeal.  Is it really easier to hold your nose, write her a check and move on?

Obviously, it is.


What is so achingly hard to accept is that for every appeal, interlocutory appeal, and mandama filed from CCL One, there are hundreds of other injustices that were not taken to the Appellate Court.  For every case filed, there are hundred of other cases not filed in ANY County Court at Law in Dallas County Texas.   Knowledgeable attorneys file in District Court to avoid D’Metria Benson.  Attorneys are warned in public presentations on topics of legal education that there are issues in Dallas County Courts.  No one who has ever practiced before D’Metria does not have sympathy with the attorney that left her courtroom to immediately vomit in the gutter outside the courthouse.

JudiciaConductDummiesIf the Democratic Party cannot muster up primary opposition to D’Metria run an Independent that will appeal to the Democratic segment of voters, peel off her narrow margin and get a competent jurist in office.  Having a stalking horse is as old as politics.  It is difficult to understand why there has never been a stalking horse for this office.  D’Metria has been a terrible judge from day one.  For a time there was hope she would improve.  That time is long gone.  This is enough.  How much pain do the citizens of Dallas County have to take.  How much more money does the Bar have to fork over to keep an incompetent, questionable judge in office?  How much more data is needed than the donations made on the day of a hearing and very close to it, donations made in conjunction with major cases being filed in this Court, and appeals and mandamus that reflect a judge who wholly disregards established precedent in favor of attorneys who have been donors in her campaign.  This needs to stop.

What is most revelatory about D’Metria’s latest excessive spending spree is the fact that the discussion associated with her references a dominant belief that she is ‘stupid’ while the reality appears to be that she believes we are ‘stupid.’  This website has been chronicling her excessive expenditures for two years (when it’s not down from a hack) and yet her spending becomes more rampageous.  The opinions from the Appellate Court in the mandama and appeals repeatedly reflect a trial court ruling that showcases a judge who completely disregards legal precedent in an astounding number of cases, often to rule in favor of an attorney who has made donations to her campaign.  Sending a case back three times and ultimately taking it away from her because she WOULD not adhere to the Appellate Court’s Order indicates she believes she is the smart one, it is the Appellate Court that is wrong.

D’Metria Benson appears to truly believe it is everyone else that is stupid how else could the “Wolf Appeal” have been returned THREE times:  “I have no idea. I can tell you what happened, but I couldn’t tell you the motivations,” said Wolf, who represents Victor Enterprises, the corporation that owns the rental home. “I’ve been to the court of appeal four times and have prevailed on three mandamuses and on an appeal of a judgment that was determined to be void…”It’s like me going down the courthouse and finding a file and saying, ‘Let’s enjoin this case.”  See Texas Lawyer for more.

And she may just be right. Cocktail chatter, bar room complaints, conference room anecdotes and more reversals for appeals and mandama than a mortal judge could expect in 20 years, have reigned her in not one bit, nor have they improved her dismal DBA judicial evaluation poll ratings.  Who is the dummy here?

For a different point of view you may read D’Metria Benson’s own blog where she describes herself as fair and impartial over seven times.


Williams Yulee v. The Florida Bar


D’Metria Benson’s conduct in her personal law suit in Henderson County, her deposition and pleadings draw squarely into question her ethical standards. Typically this conduct is not what is desired for the judiciary. Read the case, read the deposition and decide for yourself or read the excerpts.

In the Name of “Democracy”
D’Metria Benson and her campaign manager, Democracy Toolbox, have established a new trend in Dallas County judicial politics, the repeated and ongoing solicitation of donations from attorneys and mediators practicing in that judge’s court.  By law judicial candidates may solicit funds during a time frame of approximately 23 months out of the 48 month term of the judicial officer.
D’Metria has maximized her direct solicitation from attorneys with multiple solicitations and benefit events for herself.  The majority of sitting judicial candidates are able to raise their funding with but one fund raiser.
Democracy Toolbox:  Undermining Democracy?
D’Metria’s judicial bar evaluation rankings continue to place her at the lowest level of ratings, her expenditures on five star hotel expense, food, wine, gifts, office decor and air fare continue to place her at the highest level of judicial expenses.  D’Metria Benson’s reputation for partiality goes hand in glove with  ongoing solicitations for donations from attorneys and mediators who practice in her Court.
While her DBA Judicial Evaluation Poll results continue to place her at the bottom of virtually all categories, including her “knowledge of the law” her participation in expensive and ongoing continuing legal education at Five Star Hotels and expensive resorts places her at the top of expenses. Apparently, her recent stay at a Five Star Hotel did not make her any smarter!   DBA poll results indicate 81% of the Bar believe D’Metria needs an improved knowledge of the law.  Over the last nine years, her poll results have not improved.  Spending virtually as much money on CLE as most spend on a law school education, has not worked for D’Metria.
Integrity Experience and the Temperment to JUDGE?
Has Democracy Toolbox established a new criteria for sitting judges in Dallas County?  Can we expect more of this?   Watch at as close tabs are kept on all judges retaining Democracy Toolbox and those judges with extravagant expenditures and multiple fund raising campaigns.Have-You_Contributed
Destroying Public Confidence while Exploiting Reputation and Bar Poll Results for “Partiality”
Texas is one of only nine states that allows sitting judges and judicial candidates to directly solicit funds from attorneys.Nightmare on Commerce Street Continues
“The concept of public confidence in judicial integrity does not easily reduce to precise definition, nor does it lend itself to proof by documentary record. But no one denies that it is genuine and compelling,” Roberts wrote. “In short, it is the regrettable but unavoidable appearance that judges who personally ask for money may diminish their integrity that prompted the Supreme Court of Florida and most other states to sever the direct link between judicial candidates and campaign contributors. As the Supreme Court of Oregon explained, ‘the spectacle of lawyers or potential litigants directly handing over money to judicial candidates should be avoided if the public is to have faith in the impartiality of its judiciary.’ In re Fadeley, 310 Ore. 548, 565, 802 P. 2d 31, 41 (1990).”
Roberts also addressed claims that the direct solicitation prohibition was essentially meaningless since, “The judicial candidates could easily find out who had contributed and even write thank you notes to contributors.”
“It is always somewhat counter-intuitive to argue that a law violates the First Amendment by abridging too little speech,” Roberts wrote. “ . . . . The solicitation ban aims squarely at the conduct most likely to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary: personal requests for money by judges and judicial candidates. The Canon applies evenhandedly to all judges and judicial candidates, regardless of their viewpoint or chosen means of solicitation. And unlike some laws that we have found impermissibly under inclusive, Canon 7C(1) is not riddled with exceptions. . . . Indeed, the Canon contains zero exceptions to its ban on personal solicitation.”
Bob Gammage, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court commented on campaign contributions in “Justice for Sale” for PBS: “If you don’t dance with them that brung you, you may not be there for the next dance.”
Well, D’Metria, notwithstanding the fact that she is Dallas Worst Judge, is back!  And her dance card is full, full, full.  One attorney noted that after his last case with D’Metria he walked outside and threw up in the gutter.  He said rather than ever have a case in her Court again, CCL One, he simply withdraws.
This is a very expensive prom for the attendants and the litigants, no matter which side you are on!   In fact, probably for the first time in her life D’Metria is finally PROM QUEEN!  Who won PROM KING?  Criteria for Prom King candidate is that person or firm whose donation(s) to D’Metria meet Justice Roberts’ standard as:

The conduct most likely to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary:

personal requests for money by judges and judicial candidate.



This autumn:  Just the Facts

Is there a bias in favor of donors?  

Is there a pattern of conduct?  You decide.

D'Metria Benson Five Fund Raisers Questionably Timed Donations

D’Metria Benson Five Fund Raisers Questionably Timed Donations

D'Metria Benson Campaign Fund Raisers

D’Metria Benson Campaign Fund Raisers

FUNDS RAISED AFTER THE ELECTION:  It is important to review funds raised after the election.  The fact that donations can be made AFTER an election creates an environment in which candidates and potential candidates make a calculated and self-benefiting choice to not  focus on the donation process and abuses, thereby drawing attention to donors.  These candidates, should they be successful, anticipate donation after a successful election from large, consistent donors such as Haynes and Boone.  Large donors will not antagonize a sitting judge, even one with ratings as low as D’Metria’s, by donating to an opposing candidate before an election.
This process, of withholding financial support from an opposing candidate in favor of a sitting judge, is one contributing factor to the re-election of D’Metria Benson.  Review the appellate court donations and timing, the pattern is clear.  Review the large donors and cases set in County Court at Law Number One – there is again, a clear pattern. Do your own research at Dallas County Campaign Finance filings, draw your own conclusions.

Linking Donors to Court Cases

Democracy-War-Chest_ToolsIt is time to begin publishing each donors name with a link to each case filed in a candidate’s court.  It is inequitable that most donors will only support an incumbent prior to an election.  Should the incumbent lose the donor will donate to the challenger after the election.
By noting each donor and the cases filed in a specific court, the public can decide whether the donation was motivate by a genuine appreciation for the judicial candidate or draw another conclusion based upon the underlying factual reality of situations.
This may not level the playing field but it will at least shine a little antiseptic sunshine on the situation.

Will the Architect of the FIVE TIME SOLICITATION PLAN for D’Metria be Rewarded with More Business or Will Judicial Candidates with Integrity Find a Different Campaign Manager?

Fifth-District-Court-Appeals-Dallas_Justice_$5KClub-3An argument can be made that unpacking this Pandora’s Box of unending campaign solicitations harms the judiciary.  Any campaign promoter of this conduct should not be rewarded with further business by other judicial candidates be they Republican or Democrat.
It is a low game that would exploit D’Metria’s ratings and reputation for being partial as reflected by the Dallas Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Poll results.
It is hard to fathom that with D’Metria’s additional Judicial Evaluation Poll results for knowledge of the law equally low that attorneys would rush to her support.  A campaign manager might find her perception of partiality worth exploiting but it is shameful for others in the judiciary to join with this same manager if their devotion is to the integrity of the judiciary.
Two-Judges-atmDBA Judicial Poll Evaluation: Is D’Metria Benson Impartial?*
2015: 73% Needs Improvement
2013: 77% Needs Improvement
2011: 74% Needs Improvement
2009: 76% Needs Improvement
The Fifth District Court of Appeals has made it very clear in a Motion to Recuse Judge Cortez, the former 44th District Court judge accused of sex with a child, cocaine use and choking a prostitute, that campaign contributions by lead counsel made which were characterized as “large and curiously timed contributions” to Judge Cortez’s re-election campaign would NOT serve to support a Recusal Order.
The Fifth District Court did not find contributions made by Jeffrey Tillotson, a partner at Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, who donated $5,000 to Cortez’s campaign a week before a key hearing in the case in May 2013, together with a $2,500 contribution from Tillotson’s law firm made to Cortez’s re-election campaign the day after Cortez ruled in favor of Tillotson’s clients were a basis for judicial recusal. Tillotson’s personal contribution was made at a public fundraiser hosted by Cortez and properly reported in the campaign finance report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.  Read more:  Texas Lawyer Here.
But as demonstrated in the “Not Our First Rodeo” whistleblowing is a breach of contract case, this firm had not only the trial court covered with campaign contributions, their contributions dominated the sitting, elected appellate court and beckoned all others with their known, demonstrated and historical contributions to judicial campaigns.  This case included curiously timed donations as well.


The Five Fund Raiser Campaign Undermines Judicial Appearance of Integrity

Two-Judges-atmWill County Court at Law Judges Mark Greenberg, Timothy King Fifer and William Kenneth Tapscott continue to retain this same firm, thereby tacitly approving this strategy of exploiting D’Metria’s poll results and reputation for partiality, whether adopting them for themselves or not?  Or will they find new management for their campaigns?  These judges do not share the same low results as D’Metria, nor the appetite for extravagant spending, nor have they demonstrated the need to return to the bar five times to raise funds.  You may follow these events at .
This conduct of five solicitations directly from attorneys over a 23 month period harms the judiciary.  Any campaign firm that promotes conduct which undermines the judiciary should not be retained by those devoted to maintaining its integrity.  Each of these judges is capable of raising adequate funds without resorting to these tactics of repeated solicitations from attorneys who practice in their court.  Obviously, D’Metria was/is not.
To continue to retain and reward the campaign management firm that engaged in this conduct of repeated solicitations from attorneys and mediators on behalf of D’Metria is not in the best interest of the judiciary, justice for Dallas County or of the litigants of Dallas County who find themselves trapped in CCL One.
Dallas County’s Judiciary needs to look inward.  By continuing to employ the same campaign management firm that brought the five ongoing fund-raising solicitation program to the judiciary of Dallas County (which is virtually half the time a judge is on the bench) the Dallas County Judiciary has endorsed this conduct.  Close scrutiny should be the concomitant and inevitable result of this conduct.
The Judiciary of Dallas County Texas should do everything possible to ensure this type of conduct ends and that includes not employing any campaign firm that creates this deplorable environment within any Court.



Attorneys Cannot Directly Solicit Clients but Judges Can Directly Solicit Money from Attorneys

Judges can continue to profess their impassioned impartiality but the public has moved beyond that.  Those who may be impartial even 95% of the time will have a hard time convincing the public.  While their courtroom pronouncements have impact and power, their self serving claims of impartiality (even when they truly are) convince no one.  Judges like D’Metria Benson exacerbate the dilemma.
Clearly, judges must raise funds but they are not obligated to spend funds on office decor, expensive travel and close to $30,000 on parties.
D’Metria Benson has spent more on Continuing Legal Education than the cost of most law degrees while her “knowledge of the law” rankings by the Dallas Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Poll remain the lowest of all judges.  The only thing D’Metria Benson appears to be learning is how to raise money and spend it with the help of Democracy Toolbox.
With only a 9 percent “excellent” rating an inference can be made that those who have contributed, those with a strong interest in seeing D’Metria continue as a jurist in THEIR cases are the only members of the Bar that genuinely support D’Metria.
The Dallas Bar Association should not only ask whether an attorney responding to their poll has donated, their firm has donated but does the member believe the jurist is a good representation of the ethics and morality a jurist should possess.   No doubt, Carlos Cortez would have failed but would D’Metria not fail as well?






Texas Judicial Campaign Contributions. Howard Hughes said, "This is Texas ...."Texas Judicial Campaign Contributions. Howard Hughes said, “This is Texas ….”
D'Metria Benson Solicitation

Other judges are able to raise funds with ONE fund raiser. The Worst Judge in Dallas solicits money from the first window of opportunity to the last. In some professions solicitation is a crime. While attorneys cannot solicit clients directly or indirectly, Judges by law are able to solicit money as often as they like from attorneys who practice law in their Courts in the State of Texas. The “Worst Judge in Dallas County” repeatedly solicits attorneys for donations during the 23 month time frame allowed by law.

            Dallas Bar Poll D'Metria Benson

Dallas Bar Poll D’Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge:  A review of the list of donors matched to cases filed in CCL One demonstrates a clear pattern of conduct in both the timing of the contributions and the case(s) filed.  Additionally, a review of the appeals and mandamae filed from CCL One demonstrates a strong correlation between the disregard of established precedent by the Court and attorneys making donations to D’Metria.  Obviously, mediators depend on referrals directly from D’Metria.  Their ongoing, unrelenting donations appear timed to the ongoing and unrelenting request for donations.

Total Contributions 1/1/15 to 6/30/15 $  38,995  
Kendall Law Group $       5,000 2/9/2015
Van Shaw $       5,000 3/4/2015
Law Office Tshome Anderson $       2,500 3/2/2015
Justin Dale Laurence $        1,500 2/28/2015
Gloria Akin $        1,500 3/3/2015
Ted Lyon & Assoc $      1,000  3/2/2015
Lisa Blue Barron $      1,000 2/19/2015
Sommerman & Quesada $      1,000 2/18/2015
Gary G. Berman $      1,000 2/26/2015
Gilbert Mediations $      1,000 3/2/2015
Robert B. Shields $      1,000 2/20/2015
Marcia Wormingon / Womington & Bollizer $      1,000 2/11/2015
Burden Mediations $        800 3/2/2015
Angel Reeyes $         500 2/9/2015
Hahn Law Firm $         500 2/14/2015
Bell, Nunnally & Morton $         500 2/18/2015
Stephen Schoultz $         500 3/2/2015
Michael Payma $         500 3/2/2015
Gruber Hurst Johansen $         500 3/2/2015
Benton Law Firm $         500 3/2/2015
Zelesky Mediators $         500 3/2/2015
Modjanad & Associates $         500 2/20/2015
Settle & Pou $         500 3/2/2015
John Wall $         500 3/2/2015
Paige Edwards $         500 3/2/2015
P. Michael McCullogh $         500 2/12/2015
Farrow Gillespie & Heath $         250 2/4/2015
Frank Finn / Thompson Knight $         250 2/13/2015
Quentin D. Brogden $         250 2/11/2015
Dedman Law $         250 2/17/2015
Grau Law Group $         250 2/18/2015
Whitehurst & Caley $         250 2/12/2015
Jane Fraser $         250 2/23/2015
Joan Tarpley $         250 2/10/2015
Wiliam Wiles $         250 2/24/2015
Joseph Zoppolosky / Glast Phillips & Murray $         250 3/3/2015
Diane Minissale $         250 3/2/2015
Tamar Meeks $         250 2/25/2015
Mel Wolovits $         250 2/25/2015
Walker Duke $         250 2/25/2015
Charles Oliver $         250 2/13/2015
Carl Tillery $        200 2/12/2015
Hal K. Gillespie $        200 3/1/2015
Elizabeth Handschuler $         100  3/2/2015
A few more attorneys to add in the smaller $100 to $250 range.

Contributions 2013 to 2015

Al Ellis $100.00 9/23/2014
Al Ellis $100.00 6/6/2013
Andrew Jee PC $200.00 9/23/2014
Andrew L. Payne $1,000.00 9/20/2014
Andrew Yung $250.00 6/16/2013
Andrews & Kurth Texas PAC $1,000.00 9/27/2014
Andrews Kurth LLP $1,000.00 5/24/2013
Andrews Kurth Texas PAC $250.00 10/2/2013
Angel Reeyes $500.00 2/9/2015
Ann Ashby $200.00 6/21/2014
Ann Hubener $250.00 10/22/2013
Arant Law Firm $100.00 5/4/2014
Arturo Singer $100.00 5/4/2014
Avant Law Firm $100.00 6/5/2013
Baker Botts Amicus Fund $1,000.00 5/31/2013
Lisa Blue Barron  LEGIBLE? 5/13/201?
Baron & Blue $500.00 10/20/2014
Lisa Blue Barron $1.000 2/19/2015
Baron & Budd PC $2,000.00 10/20/2014
Baron & Budd PC $2,000.00 6/6/2013
Bell Nunally & Martin LLP $250.00 5/31/2013
Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP $250.00 9/27/2014
Bell, Nunnally & Morton $500.00 2/18/2015
Ben Abbott PC $1,000.00 6/6/2013
Ben Abbott, P.C.  (See also $5K from LAWHR, PLLC) $4,000.00 10/2/2013
Ben Dubose $500.00 10/27/2014
Ben Dubose $500.00 10/27/2014
Ben Martin $1,000.00 9/27/2014
Ben Martin $1,000.00 9/27/2013
Benton Law Firm $500.00 3/2/2015
Bickel & Brewer $2,500.00 8/9/2013
Bill Sims $1,000.00 5/24/2013
Bob Wiley $100.00 9/27/2014
Brent & Betty Rosenthal $250.00 9/23/2014
Brian Gervon $500.00 6/5/2013
Brian Sanford $250.00 10/1/2013
Burden Mediations $800.00 3/2/2015
Burdin Mediations $500.00 9/23/2014
Burdin, Mary $950.00 9/27/2014
Burdin, Mary $500.00 5/24/2013
Burford & Ryburn $250.00 9/27/2014
Cannon Law Group LLC $25.00 4/29/2014
Carl Tillery $200.00 2/12/2015
Carl Tillery $1,000.00 8/9/2013
Carrington Coleman $500.00 6/5/2013
Cathy Johnson $100.00 9/23/2014
Cathy L. Johnson $100.00 5/1/2014
Charla Aldous $500.00 6/21/2013
Charles Oliver $250.00 2/13/2015
Charles Oliver $250.00 9/27/2014
Claudia -Cano? $300.00 10/22/2014
Clint Blackman $100.00 10/2/2013
Colleen M. Martin $250.00 5/1/2014
Conrad, Kasselman $250.00 8/9/2013
Courtney Barksdale Perez PLLC $100.00 6/3/2013
Cozen O’Conner PAC $200.00 10/8/2013
Craig Albert $100.00 9/27/2014
Craig Smith $100.00 10/27/1987
Curtis Marsh $250.00 9/27/2014
Cynthia F. Solls $250.00 9/23/2014
Cynthia F. Solls $250.00 5/25/2013
Cynthia Solls $250.00 4/12/2014
Cynthia Solls $250.00 9/17/2013
Cynthis Solls $250.00 4/26/2014
Darren Wolf, PC $100.00 10/2/2013
David C. Andorf 6/6/2013
David Diaz $500.00 6/11/2013
David Kent $100.00 9/23/2013
David Taubenfeld /Haynes Boone $200.00 6/6/2013
David Watskey $50.00 6/6/2013
Dean & Lyons $100.00 9/27/2014
Deans & Lyons LLP $1,000.00 10/2/2013
Deans & Lyons LLP $1,000.00 6/6/2013
Dedman Law $250.00 2/17/2015
Dedman Law PLLC $250.00 6/6/2013
Denny Marten PC $100.00 10/2/2013
Denyse F. Clancy $1,000.00 9/23/2014
Diane Minissale $250.00 3/2/2015
Domengo A. Garcia $2,500.00 6/6/2013
Domingo Garcia $5,000.00 9/28/2014
Dunn Shehan $1,000.00 missing
Dunn Shehan LLP $500.00 5/30/2013
E. Leon Carter $1,000.00 5/4/2014
E. Leon Carter $1,000.00 9/23/2013
Eberstein Witherite $500.00 6/5/2013
Ebertsein & Witherite $500.00 9/26/2013
Edward Sampson $1,000.00 9/27/2014
Edward Sampson $1,000.00 5/30/2013
Elizabeth Handschuch $100.00 10/23/2013
Elizabeth Handschuler $100.00 3/2/2015
Eric Cedillo PC $500.00 9/23/2014
Eric Morye $500.00 9/23/2014
Farrow Billespie & Heath $250.00 2/4/2015
Farrow Gillespie & Heath $500.00 6/4/2013
Fears Nachawati Law Firm $500.00 9/30/2013
Fears Nachawati Law Firm $500.00 6/14/2013
Fee, Smith Shaep & Vitullo $250.00 6/6/2013
Frank Finn $100.00 9/27/2014
Frank Finn / Thompson Knight $250.00 2/13/2015
Frank L. Branson PC $5,000.00 6/4/2013
Freidman Feiger $1,000.00 9/4/2013
Freidman & Feiger LLP $100.00 9/23/2014
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP $500.00 5/31/2013
Gary Berman
Gary Berman $1,000.00 6/1/2013
Gary G. Berman $1,000.00 2/26/2015
Gary G. Berman $1,000.00 10/1/2013
General Duneis Warehousemon ??? $1,000.00 10/20/2014
Geroge Bramblett / Haynes Boone $1,000.00 6/6/2013
Gil L. Dailey PC $250.00 6/6/2013
Gilbert Mediations $1,000.00 3/2/2015
Gilbert Mediations $500.00 8/9/2013
Gloria Aiken $1,000.00 6/12/2013
Gloria Akin $1,500.00 3/3/2015
Gloria Akin $1,000.00 10/20/2014
Godwin Lewis $1,000.00 4/12/2013
Godwin Lewis PC $500.00 5/28/2013
Graber Hunt Johasen Hail Shank $500.00 9/27/2014
Grady Chandler $250.00 9/27/2014
Grant & Hicks PLLC $1,000.00 8/20/2013
Grau Law Group $250.00 2/18/2015
Grauw Law Group PLLC $250.00 6/17/2013
Grier Raggio $200.00 5/25/2013
Grier Raggio $500.00 5/1/2014
Gruber Hurst Johansen $500.00 3/2/2015
H. Grady Chandler $500.00 8/9/2013
Hahn Law Firm $500.00 2/14/2015
Hal GIllespie $250.00 9/27/2014
Hal K. Gillespie $200.00 3/1/2015
Hal K. Gillespie $100.00 6/5/2013
Handschuler Law P.C. $100.00 10/20/2014
Haynes & Boone PAC $5,000.00 5/28/2013
Henley & Henley $1,000.00 6/6/2013
Henley & Henley PC $500.00 4/29/2014
Hernandez Law PC $1,000.00 4/29/2014
Hightower Angelley LLP $500.00 6/6/2013
Hunton & Williams $500.00 5/31/2013
Winstead PC PAC $500.00 6/15/2013
J. Richard Gallager $100.00 9/27/2014
J. Richard Gallagher $100.00 9/21/2013
Jack Peacock $1,500.00 7/1/2014
Jackson Walker LLP PAC $500.00 6/6/2013
Jahid Niza $500.00 11/10/2013
Jane Fraser $250.00 2/23/2015
Jay Zeleskey $100.00 10/2/2013
Jeffery Rasansky $100.00 4/12/2014
Jeffrey Bragaline $500.00 5/31/2013
Jeffrey M. Tilotson $2,500.00 5/1/2014
Jessica Praeger $100.00 6/6/2013
Joan Tarpley $250.00 2/10/2015
Joan Tarpley $250.00 10/27/2014
Joan Tarpley $500.00 11/5/2014
Joe Kendall $2,500.00 6/5/2013
John E. Sullivan $100.00 6/5/2013
John Howie $1,000.00 9/29/2013
John J. Diggins $100.00 9/27/2014
John J. Diggins $200.00 10/4/2013
John L. Langdon $1,000.00 9/23/2014
John Stillwell $100.00 5/1/2014
John Stilwell $100.00 9/20/2014
John Wall $500.00 3/2/2015
Johnson Tobey $500.00 6/5/2013
Joseph P. Griffith $75.00 6/6/2013
Joseph Zoppolosky / Glast Phillips & Murray $250.00 3/3/2015
Julie A. Zanutto $100.00 9/23/2014
Julie A. Zanutto $100.00 5/1/2014
Julie A. Zanutto $100.00 6/6/2013
Julie Zanutto $100.00 10/2/2013
Justin Dale Laurence $1,500.00 2/28/2015
Kane Russell Coelman & Logan $500.00 10/2/2013
Karen Brooks $2,500.00 10/1/2013
Karl Neal $100.00 9/27/2013
Kastl Law OPC $500.00 9/23/2014
Katherine M. Fragnoli $50.00 6/4/2013
Ken Burdin $250.00 9/27/2014
Ken Burdin $500.00 5/24/2013
Ken Burdin Mediations $250.00 4/12/2014
Kendall Law Group $5,000.00 2/9/2015
Kenneth J. Rubenstein $350.00 6/6/2013
Kim Renee James $100.00 10/2/2013
Kim Renee James $100.00 9/23/2014
Korn Bowdich & Diaz $250.00 5/1/2014
Korn Bowdick Diaz $500.00 10/2/2013
Kristi Lassiter $200.00 6/28/2013
Kristina Kastl $500.00 10/3/2013
Lance A. Pool $100.00 5/1/2014
Larry Rolle $100.00 10/1/2013
Law Office of Julie Johnson $1,000.00 9/27/2014
Law Office of Van Shaw $1,000.00 6/21/2014
Collen Meyer with Van Shaw Law Office $5,000.00 9/24/2014
Law Offices Van Shaw $5,000.00 5/24/2013
Van Shaw $5000.oo 3/4/2015
Lawrh PLLC  (See also Ben Abbott) $5,000.00 9/25/2014
Tshome Anderson Law Office $2500 3/2/2015
Lee Worley $100.00 9/27/2014
Lewis LeClair $1,000.00 10/28/2013
Linda M. Dedman $250.00 9/27/2014
Lisa Miller Bys $500.00 5/24/2013
Lynn Tillotson Penter & Cox $1,000.00 6/24/2013
Lyon Gorskey Haring $100.00 8/13/2013
M. Nawaz PC $1,000.00 5/4/2014
Madjanad & Abusaad $3,138.00 10/2/2013
Marc Lenahan $500.00 10/?/13
Marcia Wormingon / Womington & Bollizer $1,000.00 2/11/2015
Margaret Jones Johnson $100.00 10/20/2014
Margaret Jones Johnson $100.00 8/28/2013
Margaret Jones Johnson $100.00 6/6/2013
Mark A. Ticer $200.00 5/12/2013
Mark L. Johansen $250.00 6/10/2013
Mary E. Skelnik $250.00 9/23/2014
Mary E. Skelnik $250.00 5/1/2014
Mary M. Burdin Attorney $500.00 4/12/2014
Mastrogiovanni, Schorsch & Merskey $500.00 10/2/2013
Mazin Ahma Sbiatz $250.00 10/2/2013
McDonald Devin P.C. $250.00 10/2/2013
McKey Morrison & Sanchez $500.00 6/6/2013
Mel Wolovits $250.00 2/25/2015
Mel Wolovitz $250.00 missing
Mel Wolovitz $250.00 9/27/2014
Mel Wolovitz $250.00 5/24/2013
Melodee Armstrong $2,500.00 10/20/2014
Melodee Armstrong $2,500.00 10/2/2013
Michael McCullogh $50.00 5/28/2013
Michael McCullough $250.00 10/1/2013
Michael McCullough $500.00 5/1/2014
Michael Payma $500.00 3/2/2015
Michael Payma $1,000.00 6/6/2013
Michael V. Marconi $250.00 5/1/2014
Michael Wimbixh $150.00 10/20/2014
Michele Wong Krause $100.00 10/2/2013
Michele Wong Krause $100.00 9/9/2014
Michele Wong Krause $150.00 5/30/2013
Miller Weisbrod $2,500.00 5/4/2014
Miller Weisbrod LLP $1,000.00 5/28/2013
Miller Weisbrod LLP $2,500.00 9/16/2013
Mitchell Goff & Mitchell $1,000.00 9/24/2013
Modjanad & Assoc $200.00 6/5/2013
Modjanad & Associates $500.00 2/20/2015
Mr. W.D. Wiles $200.00 9/23/2014
Mullin Law $250.00 10/2/2013
Niles Silch $750.00 6/24/2013
Nina Cortell $100.00 6/6/2013
P. Michael McCillogh $500.00 2/12/2015
Paige Edwards $500.00 3/2/2015
Payma Kuhnel & Smith $1,500.00 10/2/2013
Quentin Brogden $250.00 5/25/2013
Quentin D. Brogden $250.00 2/11/2015
Rad Law Firm $500.00 9/23/2014
Raul Eliyondo $200.00 6/21/2014
Reyes Broune Reilley $250.00 6/7/2013
Richard Capshaw $250.00 8/9/2013
Richard Capshaw $500.00 9/27/2014
Richard D. Pullman $50.00 5/29/2013
Rober G. Vial PC $150.00 6/6/2013
Robert B. Shields $1,000.00 2/20/2015
Robert G. Vial, PC $100.00 9/24/2013
Robert P. Gray & Elizabeth Schrupp $100.00 7/5/2013
Roxane L. Rose $50.00 10/2/2013
Roxane M. Guerrenco $250.00 10/2/2013
Samson Greenston Panatrer $500.00 5/1/2014
Schmidt & Holmes $150.00 6/18/2013
Schorr Law Firm PC $200.00 6/6/2013
Schulman Law Firm $100.00 9/27/2014
Scott Frenkel $1,000.00 6/4/2013
Scott Hahn $500.00 9/27/2014
Scott Lidji PC $100.00 9/23/2014
Scott Richard $250.00 9/27/2014
Scott Richard $250.00 9/26/2013
Scottie Ashley $500.00 11/15/2013
Sean S. Madjanad $1,000.00 5/1/2014
Sedgwick Attorneys at Law $250.00 8/9/2013
Settle & Pou $500.00 3/2/2015
Settle Pou PC $250.00 9/27/2014
Settle Pou PC $500.00 6/6/2013
Settle, Pou $500.00 9/24/2013
Shamoren & Norman $1,000.00 9/23/2014/
Shamoun & Norman $1,000.00 9/25/2013
Shamoun & Norman LLP $1,000.00 5/31/2013
Shombe A. Anderson PLLC $1,000.00 4/30/2014
Sommerman & Quesada $1,000.00 2/18/2015
Sommerman & Quesada $500.00 5/29/2013
Sommerman & Quesada $1,000.00 9/27/2014
Standley & Hamilton $250.00 9/23/2014
Stephe Shoultz $250.00 5/4/2014
Stephen M. Ramsey $250.00 9/23/2014
Stephen Schoultz $500.00 3/2/2015
Stephen W. Shoultz $250.00 10/2/2013
Steve Laird $300.00 9/23/2014
Steve Shoultz $500.00 9/23/2014
Taibim Sons Law Firm $50.00 5/29/2013
Tamar Meeks $250.00 2/25/2015
Tamar Meeks $100.00 5/29/2013
Tamar Micks PC $250.00 9/26/2013
Tamor Meeks $100.00 9/27/2014
Ted B. Lyon $1,000.00 5/24/2013
Ted B. Lyon & Associates $1,000.00 9/15/2014
Ted Lyon & Assoc $1,000.00 3/2/2015
Ted Lyon & Assoc $500.00 5/1/2014
The Bush Law Firm $100.00 6/5/2013
Thomas C. Barron $100.00 10/2/2013
Thomas Howery $250.00 9/27/2014
Thompson & Knight PAC $500.00 10/11/2013
Thorne & Skinner $100.00 9/23/2013
Thorne & Skinner $250.00 9/27/2014
Tom Carse $1,000.00 5/4/2014
Tom Carse P.C. $500.00 9/27/2013
Tom McCrory $250.00 6/24/2013
Tom McCrory $750.00 10/11/2013
Tshombe Anderson $500.00 9/16/2014
Tx Dem Party $4,500.00 3/27/2014
Vasallo & Salazar $500.00 8/9/2013
Vella Keller PC $250.00 9/23/2014
Victor Vital $250.00 6/6/2013
Victor Vital $500.00 10/20/2014
Vinson & Elkins $2,000.00 5/31/2013
W. Gary Fowler $500.00 6/5/2013
W.D. Wiles $200.00 5/4/2014
W.E. Wiles $200.00 6/6/2013
Wade Barrow $100.00 9/23/2014
Walker Duke $250.00 2/25/2015
Whitehurst & Caley $250.00 2/12/2015
Wiliam Wiles $250.00 2/24/2015
William Blankenship $500.00 9/27/2014
William Blankenship $500.00 6/5/2013
William Camp $250.00 10/2/2013
William Camp $500.00 5/1/2014
William E. Zook $100.00 10/20/2014
William Hagner & Assoc $100.00 9/27/2014
William M. Hayner $100.00 9/23/2013
Woodrow Bonesco $50.00 6/5/2013
Wormington Law Group $100.00 9/23/2014
Wormington Law Group $500.00 5/4/2014
Zeleskey Mediation $250.00 6/5/2013
Zelesky Mediators $500.00 3/2/2015
D'Metria Bensons Dallas Worst Judge Campaign Contributions
THE JUDICIARY OF DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS NEEDS TO CLEAN ITS OWN HOUSE.  It has been reported there was an internal campaign at a law firm to support D’Metria in the Judicial Evaluation Poll of Dallas County 2015 in light of the contributions made to her campaign by the law firm.  The reference was: “WE NEED TO PUT OUR VOTES IN THE DBA POLL WHERE OUR MONEY IS … AND THAT’S IN D’METRIA.”  That is reported to be a direct unintended consequence of this website.
Williams-Yulee v. the Florida Bar
A closer look this fall.

Poll Finds Republicans and Democrats Agree Campaign Finance Is a Disaster

Dallas County Campaign Finance Filings here. Review the donations.

Attorneys in D’Metria’s Court Quietly Outraged with D’Metria’s Continued Solicitations


Q&A’s on D’Metria’s Five Fund Raisers
D'Metria Benson Creates New Whistleblowing Law!

D’Metria Benson Creates New Whistleblowing Law!  What competitive advantage was sought here?  Recovery amount was limited pursuant to the petition filed, attorneys fees clearly outweighed the hope of any remuneration, if that was even possible under the legal theories presented.  This case was being fully litigated in federal court.  What advantage could have been envisioned?  Was the purpose of this case a fair or reasonable resolution to the issues in light of the limitations placed on recovery by the Plaintiffs, the attorney’s fees associated with such a case, and the venue.

Q.  You received how many invitations to fund raisers with food and wine at Times Ten Cellars from D’Metria?

A. Four, I believe.

Q.  How did you feel?

A.  Like a chump that should have waited until the last one.  I’ve never been dunned over and over and over and over.  It’s a scummy scam as far as I’m concerned.

Q. Did you donate?

A. Hell, yeah.

Q.  Why?

A.  I’ve got several cases in her Court.  Hell, yeah I gave her money.  The woman’s a ….


Criticism of Website Recognized and Accepted

Regarding the criticism that the images drawn of D’Metria are neither respectful nor tasteful … Correct, no respect here.

You have senior attorneys at major law firms “ye-hawing” their frivolous claims, senior attorneys donating thousands of dollars on the day of their hearing in D’Metria’s Court (and very close to it), you have a judge ignoring the law again and again and again, you have ninety percent of all attorneys that have appeared before her stating she’s incompetent (and worse) and you have an appellate court that takes money from these same folks.  No wonder they’re screeching “Ye=Haw, Ain’t Our First Rodeo!”

Attorneys Who Have Not Donated Seek to Associate those Who Have Donated

Those who are locked out of the donation time frame during the 25 months that donations cannot be made to a candidate by law, who find themselves in D’Metria’s Court begin a search for attorneys who are large donors to associate with their case, looking to large donors to carry their case in D’Metria’s Court.

This scenario makes the donation a “good investment” in many ways.  Large donors can be joined with other attorneys without a donation history in D’Metria’s court, and are joined for that sole purpose.  D’Metria spends thousands and thousands on travel, office decor, food, wine, meals, gifts, funds other judge’s do not spend and then hits up attorneys again, and again, and again, and again, and again for MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY.

As always criticisms are recognized and accepted.  The website is modified based upon some criticisms but not upon all, obviously.

D’Metria’s Expenses and Five Fund Raisers 
D'Metria Benson's Travel after her last fundraiser of March 2, 2105.

D’Metria Benson’s Travel after her last fundraiser of March 2, 2105.

After D’Metria’s Fifth Fundraiser Invitations for the event of March 2, 2015, began generating cash revenue to her campaign the first thing she did was purchase a ticket to San Francisco on February 28, 2015, where she ensconced herself at the Ritz Carlton at a cost of in excess of $1500. Legal education at the Ritz Carlton did not prove to be any more effective than her historical expenditures.  Her DBA Judicial Poll results continue as low as ever, in fact, the lowest reported. Then on to Washington D.C. where she purchased mementos and charged those together with her airfare and hotel to her donors, as well!

5/3/2015 Ritz Carlton – San Francisco $1,576
2/28/2015 Virgin Air $544
5/10/2015 Residence Inn – Washington DC $414
5/11/2015 Virgin Air $149
5/8/2015 U.S. Supreme Court Gift Shop $245
5/6/2015 National Archives Gifts $110
6/1/2015 Gallery Central Framing $326
Total Post Campaign Fling! $3,364


Texas Ethics Commission Requirement for POLITICAL EXPENDITURES

A report must include all political expenditures. If aggregate expenditures to a payee exceed $100 in a reporting period, the report must include the amount of the expenditures, the date of the expenditures, the name and address of the person to whom the expenditures are made, and the purpose of the expenditures. Smaller expenditures may be reported as a lump sum.  LINK HERE

Fund Raising Parties:  $27,000

Sale+ON=JusticeIt is difficult to determine exactly what D’Metria spent on fund raising.  One of her five fund raisers has confused postings.  There is a $24k expense that is difficult to tie to a specific event and a strange $12,314K posting for expense to the Order Desk for postage on October 14, 2014.  Excluding that confusion it looks like D’Metria spent roughly $4,200 per event for four events and roughly $7,000 for another event and roughly $2500 for her “Watch Party.”

Excluding the murky and confusing $24k expense for “mailing” and the unclear $12K expense to the Order Desk for postage (and no corresponding printing or invitations) it appears D’Metria spent roughly $27,000 on fund raising and watch parties for the 2014 campaign.  Link here for details.

D’Metria is routinely too busy to include the address on her campaign finance reports as required.

DMetria Benson Ritz Carlton San Francisco 2015

D'Metria Benson - Nothing's too good for our Queen!

D’Metria spends over $1500 at the San Francisco Ritz Carlton after her Fifth Fund Raising event!


DMetria Benson Travel Expense

DMetria Benson Travel Expense

DMetria Benson Travel Expense

DMetria Benson Travel Expense


Natl_Archives=DMetria_Benson-2015 Gallery-Central=DMetria-Benson-2015

Fly to Austin, rent a car, charge the hotel! Why not?

The Omni Hotel in Fort Worth? $645! Why not?

DMetria+Benson=Travel-Expense=Jan-2012 D'Metria_Benson_Travel_2012 D'MetriaBensonTraves-July-2012 D'Metria_Hotel_Expense_2012 DMetria+Airfare-2012 Hyatt-2013-D'Metria-Benson Westin2013=Travel-D'Metria-Benson Travel-D'Metria-2013 Hotel=D'Metria=2013 Marriott-2-13 Travel=air=2013 Travel-AmEx-2013 Gifts-D'Metria-Benson-2013 Omni-Travel=D'Metria+Benson-2014 Travel-D'Metria-Benson-2014=HSB Marriott-HSB-2014 Gifts-Office-Decor-D'Metria-Benson-2014 Office-Decor-D'Metria-Benson-2014 Travel-Entertainment-D'Metria-Benson-2014 Rental-Car0Expense-Austin-Tx=D'Metria=Benson D'Metria-Benson-Gifts-2014 D'Metria-Benson-Travel-2014-hsb-austin


Integrity Experience and the Temperment to JUDGE?

Campaign Finance Laws are very clear,

The candidate must include the date of the expense in the spot marked “HERE.”  Addresses are also required.

No Address - DMetria too busy to comply with campaign finance laws.

The typical expense was in the $5,333 range. This additional expense was RECORDED on a STATED date very close in time to the Supreme Court decision on the Benson Affidavit. There is no real indication of when these expenses were incurred to to whom payment was actually made, i.e. law firms that specialize in specific areas ? Internet firms? No indication at all. Just the term, “Management Services.” Management of what? In comparison to other judicial candidate expense this stands out as unique and ‘extra.’ See more on D’Metria’s inabilibty to comply with Campaign Finance Reporting Guidelines below and here as well.

4. DATE: Enter the date the expenditure was made. The date of an expenditure is not necessarily the date goods or services are received. It is the date on which the obligation to make a payment is incurred, as long as the amount of the payment is “readily determinable”. Generally, the amount of an expenditure is known (and therefore readily determinable) when the obligation is incurred, but in some cases the amount is not known until the receipt of a bill. An amount is readily determinable if the vendor can provide the amount at the filer’s request.

 Example: On June 29th, a filer orders political signs. On July 16th, the filer receives the invoice for the signs. The date of the expenditure is June 29th if on that date the vendor can provide the amount the filer will owe the vendor for the signs. Filers should request a vendor to provide the amount of an obligation at the time the obligation is incurred.

Example: Filers will generally not know the cost of a long-distance telephone call until receipt of a monthly (periodic) bill. In that case, the date the expenditure for the telephone call would be the date the bill was received.’Metria/Oct2014_Dec2014.pdf



 Expensive Webite: http://dmetriabenson DOT Com

$7500 for a digital campaign?

Democracy Tool Box and D'Metria Benson Expense

Democracy Tool Box and D’Metria Benson Expense


Democracy Toolbox More D'Metria Benson Expense!

Democracy Toolbox More Expense!




Five Fund Raisers Helped Pay this Bill! Only a small fraction of the $227K Plus Raised!

D'Metria Benson Bat Out of Hell

D’Metria Benson Bat Out of Hell


Larry Blankenship, et al.  v. Weinstein & Riley P.S. 

A lot to post here but will get to them one by one.  So many more to post.  Please be patient.  Many more to come.

It is not often that the “LITTLE PEOPLE” harmed by D’Metria show up in the Fifth Court of Appeals.  Two cases can be found below.  One of a man represented by a large law firm that obtained precisely the Order requested in County Court at Law One, only to be abandoned in interlocutory appeal.  A second, a woman, who also obtained the remedy requested to face an interlocutory appeal to which she has not responded.  It is possible she will face staggering attorney’s fees associated with her cause which would not have been required with an application of the most fundamental law to fact.

These ‘little people’ with their ‘little cases’ are the consequence of firms like Baron & Budd’s donations, very close in time to the proximity of their hearing – though the steadfastness of Haynes & Boone won out in the breach of contract case founded on the act of whistle blowing and being litigated in federal court.  Haynes & Boone meticulously limited their demand for an amount very likely a fraction of the attorney’s fees involved in the case if tried to completion and possibly to the point of the Interlocutory Appeal filed by Baron & Budd.  See all of  Caris Life Science pleadings in navigation bar under “Historical Donors” above or link for the Original Petition.


Larry Blankenship, et al.  v. Weinstein & Riley P.S. 
Jurisdiction or lack thereof is a common reversible error found in D’Metria Benson’s Court.  It is also a common error in unappealed cases.   In this case there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   Weinstein & Riley very ably briefed the law for D’Metria, to no avail.  As you will note, Carl D. Tillery is a Plaintiff Carl Tillery is the attorney.
Dallas County Court House

Dallas County Court House


Carl_Tillery Donation D'Metria Benson

Carl_Tillery Donation of AUGUST 6, 2014,  not knowable until January 1, 2014, when Campaign Finance filings made with Dallas County, Texas.


Benedict Olusola, M.D. v. Nteesha S. Smith 

In this appalling case D’Metria dismissed a medical malpractice claim for failure to file a medical expert report.  However, she did not dismiss the breach of warranty claim and other claims.  Or so she thought.  The Appellate Court found all claims were dismissed which included misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract and warranty claims save Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees.  By placing Defendant in a position of no choice other than in interlocutory appeal, and with the outcome of Defendant’s success, the case has now been remanded on the sole issue of Defendant’s attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff is left with no claims.

This complete disregard for established precedent by D’Metria addressed by well settled law in the State of Texas has now put the Plaintiff in the position of responsibility for what will presumably be extensive attorney’s fees for the trial, appellate fees and costs of court.  The statute requires that attorney’s fees be awarded under these circumstances.

Plaintiff would have been in a much better position had D’Metria observed legal precedent, but she did not.  D’Metria ignored well settled law.  The hearing on attorney’s fees and costs is set in December of 2015.  D’Metria has left this situation in a disasterous mess for the Plaintiff who will owe significant fees, for the Defendant who has expended significant fees, and for the anticipated efforts and processes of collecting those fees.   None of this should have occurred and would NOT have occurred with a competent jurist.



Smith, Nteesha S. Appellee Nteesha S. Smith
Olusola, M.D., Benedict Appellant Robert G. Smith
Scott Novak

Issue No. 1: The Trial Court Erred in Refusing to Dismiss the Whole of Appellee’s Claims Because Appellee’s Allegations and Injuries Sound in Medical Negligence and are therefore Subsumed by TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §74, et. Seq.

A. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351 Sets Forth the Requirement that a Medical Negligence Claimant Serve on Each Defendant an Expert Report and Describes the Mandatory Penalties for Non-Compliance

B. Appellee’s Claims are Governed By Chapter 74 Because They are Inseparable from the Care Rendered and, as such, Implicate the Care at Issue, Necessitating Expert Testimony to Expound on Dr. Olusola’s Alleged Deviation from the Standard of Care and Causation

In 2003 the Texas Legislature modified and codified the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement act in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

No Appellee’s Brief Filed 

Medical Expert Report

Since Sept. 1, 2003 a plaintiff has had to follow certain procedural requirements relating to Expert Reports as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, Sections 74.351

Among those are the following:

Within 120 days after filing a health care liability claim a plaintiff must serve on each party one or more expert reports, with curriculum vitae, of each expert listed in the report for each physician against whom a liability claim is asserted.

  1. If an expert report has not been served within 120 days, the court, on the motion of the affected physician shall, subject to a 30 day extension to cure any deficiencies in an expert report, enter an order that awards the affected physician reasonable attorney’s fees and cost of court incurred by the physician and dismisses the claim with respect to the physician with prejudice to refilling the claim.
  2. The court may grant one 30-day extension to the claimant in order to cure the deficiency.  
  3. A court shall grant a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report if the report does not represent an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition f an expert report. Expert report means a written report regarding applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards and the causal relationship between the failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.
  4. Until a plaintiff has served the expert report and curriculum upon the defendant physician, all discovery in a health care liability claim is stayed except for the acquisition by the claimant of information, including medical or hospital records  or other documents or tangible things  related to the patient’s healthcare. 
  5. After the claim is filed, all plaintiffs tighter may not take more than two depositions before the expert report is served.


Fiesta Mart, Inc. v. Michael Dasilva

Kendall Law Group Moves to Withdraw on Interlocutory Appeal

In this troubling case, Kendall Law Group won handily in County Court at Law Number One.  Their Motion to Withdraw on Interlocutory Appeal met a few stumbling blocks when the Appellate Court required the firm to comply with the statutory procedure for withdrawal.  The Kendall Law Group re-grouped, complied and ultimately withdrew their representation of their client, rather than respond to the Interlocutory Appeal filed.

The Appellee, Michael Dasilva, is now pro se and the case has been set for submission on briefs.  Appellee has filed no brief.  The Court has indicated the appeal will be submitted without oral argument on October 27, 2015 to a panel consisting of Justice Lang, Justice Evans and Justice Whitehill.

2010 Campaign the Kendall Law Group was a member of the $5K club donating $5,000.

2014 Campaign the Joe Kendall donated $2,500.

February 9, 2015 Kendall Law Group Donated $5000

Cause Number:  05-15-00187-CV  Filed:  February 12, 2015

Defendant would have no knowledge of contribution until June 30, 2015 when Campaign Finance Filings posted

Kendall Law Group Withdraws in Interlocutory Appeal. Plaintiff is left pro se in Appellate Court.

Kendall Law Group Withdraws in Interlocutory Appeal. Plaintiff is left pro se in Appellate Court.

Fiesta Mart, Inc. v. Michael Dasilva
Interlocutory Appeal – Fiesta Mart, Inc.  Appellant’s Brief filed:  March 12, 2015
STATEMENT OF THE CASE In the underlying proceeding, Michael DaSilva (“DaSilva” or “Appellee”) brought Texas statutory claims of disability discrimination against Fiesta Mart, Inc. (“Fiesta Mart” or “Appellant”) arising out of work-related injuries. REC 132. Fiesta Mart filed an Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings (the “Motion”) based upon an express, written arbitration agreement between the parties. REC 6-126.

Following a hearing, the trial court entered an Order (the “Order”) denying the Motion. REC 429. APP 001. Fiesta Mart filed this interlocutory appeal for review of the Order pursuant to Section 51.016 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, because the trial court abused discretion by denying the Motion and refusing to compel arbitration under the express written agreement. …

The trial court abused discretion by denying the Motion because:

(1) a valid arbitration agreement unquestionably exists between DaSilva and Fiesta Mart; and

(2) the arbitration agreement requires that an arbitrator, not the trial court, must resolve any threshold dispute about whether any particular claim is or is not subject to arbitration.

DaSilva’s opposing arguments are nothing more than a dispute about the “arbitrability” of his underlying disability discrimination claim, a matter that the parties plainly agreed to submit to the arbitrator (not the court) for determination. Although DaSilva, through his legal counsel, offered the Court no supportable basis on which to deny the Motion (including no viable justification as to why the trial court should resolve a dispute about “arbitrability” instead of letting the arbitrator do so as the parties agreed in the Arbitration Agreement), the trial court nonetheless denied the Motion and decided that it would make all such determinations regardless of the contrary intent expressly stated in the Arbitration Agreement.

The record evidence and authorities discussed herein make abundantly clear that this denial was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.


Unopposed Motion to Withdraw by Kendall Law Group:

The Kendall Law Group has been a long time large donor to D’Metria Benson.  Their Motion to Withdraw was filed in the Appellate Court March 30, 2015.

Motion to Withdraw:

Matthew R. Scott, Joe Kendall, Javier Perez, and the Kendall Law Group respectfully request permission to withdraw as counsel of record. A motion to withdraw is being contemporaneously filed in the county court, and is being filed in this Court as well. To ensure that Appellee has adequate time to find new counsel, Appellee has also requested a sixty day extension of his appellate brief deadline. An attorney may withdraw from representing a party only upon written Motion and good cause must be shown.  There is good cause for this Court to grant the motion to withdraw because the continued representation of Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s counsel would not be in his best interest.


Kendall Law Group presumably submitted the Order to D’Metria, asked for the remedy but on Appeal the Kendall Law Group, could not muster a response.

The Appellant’s case looked strong.  Apparently, it was.

D’Metria Benson’s Order appears, from the filed interlocutory appeal to be inconsistent with the law.  Can Kendall Law Group NOT muster a plausible legal response to support the actions they requested that D’Metria Benson take on behalf of their client?  I believe we would all like to read ANY position Kendall Law Group might have on behalf of their client.

Appellant’s Brief at page 8:

Fiesta Mart filed its Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings on July 29, 2014.

Appellant’s Brief at  page 31:

Accordingly, the trial court abused discretion by disregarding the mandate of the FAA, and denying Fiesta Mart’s Motion.


The trial court abused discretion by refusing to compel arbitration. Appellant Fiesta Mart, Inc. accordingly requests that this Court reverse or vacate the Order, and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration and staying further judicial proceedings pending the outcome of binding arbitration.

The Appellate Court

orders the Motion to Withdraw comply with its rules and grants the extension.

6.5. Withdrawal

An appellate court may, on appropriate terms and conditions, permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a party in the appellate court.

(a) Contents of Motion.

A motion for leave to withdraw must contain the following:

(1) a list of current deadlines and settings in the case;

(2) the party’s name and last known address and telephone number;

(3) a statement that a copy of the motion was delivered to the party; and

(4) a statement that the party was notified in writing of the right to object to the motion.

(b) Delivery to Party.

The motion must be delivered to the party in person or mailed — both by certified and by first-class mail — to the party at the party’s last known address.

(c) If Motion Granted.

If the court grants the motion, the withdrawing attorney must immediately notify the party, in writing, of any deadlines or settings that the attorney knows about at the time of withdrawal but that were not previously disclosed to the party. The withdrawing attorney must file a copy of that notice with the court clerk.

(d) Exception for Substitution of Counsel.

If an attorney substitutes for a withdrawing attorney, the motion to withdraw need not comply with

(a) but must state only the substitute attorney’s name, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and State Bar of Texas identification number. The withdrawing attorney must comply with (b) but not (c).


Joe Kendall Law Group Donation D'Metria Benson

Joe Kendall Law Group Donation D’Metria Benson

Kendall Law Group 2015 Donation D'Metria Benson

Kendall Law Group 2015 Donation D’Metria Benson



D’Metria Benson More Mandama and Appeals

In Re: Victor Enterprises, Inc. 

Mandamus Granted for the
Third Time
Link Here
Texas Lawyer Article
Link Here
D'Metria Benson Texas Lawyer Article

D’Metria Benson Texas Lawyer Article

D'Metria Benson Dallas Observer

“D’Metria Benson … Disgrace to the Judiciary”

Two Observer Articles

“After Five Years and Three Mandamuses Fifth Circuit May Transfer Case Away from Judge [D’Metria Benson]”

D'Metria Benson Mandamus Queen

D’Metria Benson Mandamus Queen – One Case – Three Mandamus in Five Years

Just as the Dallas Observer headline indicated, the Fifth Court of Appeals did remove the case from D’Metria Benson.  The Order of the Appellate Court was challenged and met with a stern rebuff, that if its Orders were not complied with the Appellate Court would review issues associated with contempt.


NOTE FOR NON-ATTORNEYS:  A Mandamus represents an expensive and time consuming process.  A transcript of the Court’s proceedings must be purchased by the movant, the pleading filed in the case must be included in the process and a legal brief prepared which references each page an line in the transcript with supporting law.

Few parties can afford this process.  Office overhead for attorneys is amongst the highest of the professions.  Few attorneys can afford to work for free.

Because Mandamus and appeal are expensive and time consuming D’Metria Benson is able to ignore the law and punish attorneys and their clients for reasons known only to her.

D’Metria Benson is not only the worst Judge in Dallas County but she is often inexplicably  incompetent.

Fifth Court Appeal’s Opinion December 29, 2014

Holland’s contention the Court lacked authority to order Judge Benson to refrain from interfering with the unappealed justice court’s judgments is incorrect. Texas courts have long recognized the power of an appellate court to prohibit litigation that interferes with an inferior court’s judgment …. Judge Benson’s actions do not simply represent a failure to give proper preclusive effect to the judgment of another court, Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding), but rather constitute active interference with the jurisdiction of the justice court….

“[A] court’s inherent power to administer justice must necessarily include the ability to develop reasonable means to assure 1) that a cause is disposed of expeditiously and 2) that a judgment becomes final and enforceable in an expeditious manner.”

Read more here:

Two Articles “D” Magazine
D'Metria Benson D Magazine

D’Metria Benson D Magazine

Wanted One Good Democrat to Run Against D’Metria Benson

February 9, 2015 “D” Magazine 



Harris v. Obregon

Cause No.:  05-10-10349 CV

Reverse and Remand

The Appellant’s Brief and Court’s Opinion are included.

This inexplicable conduct by D’Metria leaves you wondering if she is really this reckless and derelict in the performance of her sworn judicial duties?  In view of the volume of outrageous Mandamae and Appeals the answer is yes, but the heartbreaking reality is that for every case taken to the Appellate Court there are hundreds in which clients, litigants and attorneys were victimized by D’Metria’s judicial neglect, willful or not.

View Opinion:  DMetria_Benson_Mandamus_Harris_v_Obregon_Reverse_Remand_5th  Opinion

Read Appellant Brief:D’Metria_Benson_Mandamus_Harris_v_Obregon_Brief

When Obregon failed to answer, Harris filed its motion for default judgment. As discussed above, the record demonstrates Harris then filed multiple motions and letters in an attempt to prosecute its case.

At the hearing on Harris’s motion to reinstate, however, the trial court stated that it did not “have an obligation to go searching through the file to find an amended petition.” However, a search of the court’s file would be unnecessary since the petition is labeled “amended.”  

Second, the May 10, 2010 motion for default judgment is the only motion for default judgment filed upon remand. In light of Harris’s diligence in prosecuting its case, we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing Harris’s case for want of prosecution. 

THIS CASE IS SIMPLY PUT : OUTRAGEOUS.  There appears to be a pattern of delegation of duties to the “Court Administrator” and dissemination of misinformation.  There are multiple appeals that reference these issues.  This is one:

Link here for Appellant’s Brief:


If you read the pleadings a pattern appears of representations made by the Court Administrator to counsel that are relied upon and not consistent with the conduct of the Court.  It is suggested that ANY claims or representations made by the Administrator be fully documented … and even then NOT BE RELIED UPON.  Harris v. Obregon represents a good example, though there are several appeals which include this same type of claim.

In Re:  James A. Walters:  See affidavit at page 37 attached for another example of Court Administrator/Court misdirection.  Link Here:


Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Supreme Court Texas NO. 10-0775

Take Nothing

         View Opinion:  Supreme Court Opinion Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for Georgia-Pacific,  finding that there was legally insufficient evidence of specific causation. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2010)

Atty:  Denyse Ronan Clancy of Baron & Budd

Baron & Budd and Baron & Budd Attorney Contributions 2013 to 2014 Campaign:  $6,250

Barron & Budd Donation to D'Metria Benson Campaign 2013 to 2014

Barron & Budd Donation to D’Metria Benson Campaign 2013 to 2014

Barron & Budd Donation to D'Metria Benson Campaign 2013 to 2014

Barron & Budd Donation to D’Metria Benson Campaign 2013 to 2014

Baron & Budd PC Attorney Dona'tions D'Metria Benson

Baron & Budd PC Attorney Dona’tions D’Metria Benson

Baron & Budd PC Attorney Dona'tions D'Metria Benson

Baron & Budd PC Attorney Dona’tions D’Metria Benson


In 2005, Judge Sally Montgomery presided over the trial of this lawsuit in Dallas County Court at Law No. 3. After the jury verdict awarding appellees actual and punitive damages, Judge Montgomery ordered appellees to either elect a new trial on all issues or agree to remit a misallocated award of future lost wages and the award of punitive damages. Appellees elected a new trial. The lawsuit was tried for the second time before a jury in 2006.[1] The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees, finding Georgia-Pacific seventy-five percent liable and Knox Glass, Inc., a non-party former employer of Timothy, twenty-five percent liable for Timothy’s death. The jury awarded $7,554,907 in compensatory damages and $6,038,910 in punitive damages.

Georgia-Pacific filed a motion to recuse Judge Montgomery. Judge M. Kent Sims granted the motion to recuse, and the lawsuit was transferred to Judge Russell H. Roden, Dallas County Court at Law No. 1. In December 2006, the trial court granted Georgia-Pacific’s motion for mistrial and ordered a new trial.

In January 2007, Judge D’Metria Benson became the presiding judge of Dallas County Court at Law No. 1. In February 2008, appellees filed a motion to vacate Judge Roden’s order granting a new trial and for entry of judgment.

In July 2008, Judge Benson granted appellees’ motion to vacate the order for new trial and signed a judgment based on the jury’s June 2006 verdict. In October 2008, Judge Benson signed the amended final judgment awarding appellees $6,784,135.32 in compensatory damages and $4,831,128.00 in punitive damages. Georgia-Pacific appealed.


CCC Group, Inc. v. South Central Cement, Ltd. 

 Cause Number:  01-13-00567-CV; Date Filed: 07/03/2013
Reversed and Rendered
Party PartyType Representative
CCC Group, Inc. Appellant Brianne Richardson
David V. Wilson III
South Central Cement. Ltd. Appellee Carlton D. Wilde Jr.
A Randall Friday
J. Daniel Long

– See more at:


Lisle Patton & Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, et al  v. Collin D. Porterfield 
Cause Number:  05-11-01619-CV, filed:  05-11-01619-CV

– See more at:

Reverse and Rendered  
Link Here


Michael E. Killebrew, Jr.  v.  BKE Investments, Inc. 
Cause Number:  03-13-00149-CV; Date Filed: 03/01/2013
– See more at:
Party Party Type Representative
BKE Investments, Inc. Appellee Dr. J. Hyde
Killebrew, Junior, Michael E. Appellant Mr. Anthony G. Read
Mr. William B. Gammon
Mandate:  Revise or
Reverse Judgment  
Link Here




Appellate Court

Write Denied

Supreme Court

Cause Number: 14-0706; Date Filed: 09/08/2014

Case Type:  Petition for Review originally filed as 53.7(f)

The trial court’s order denying Appellant SWABACK PARTNERS, PLLC’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth amended petition as to the claims against SWABACK is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion. Link Here.

Once again, you have a group doing well in trial court but not so great on appeal in either the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Status

Writ Denied: June 2015

January 6, 2015:

Received call from Ms. Randle (Janet Randle of Van Shaw Law Office) clarifying that the motion was asking for an extension for the Petitioner’s Brief only.
Motion for Extension of Time to file Petitioners’ Brief on the Merits filed on behalf of OMP Development, LLC., et al. GRANTED.

Supreme Court Status: February 18, 2015:

Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief on the Merits filed on behalf of Petitioner OMP Development, LLC., et al. has been granted. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE CONSIDERED. Petitioners brief is due March 19, 2015; Respondents brief is due April 8, 2015; Reply brief is due April 23, 2015.

Supreme Court Status: March 11, 2015:

Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to file Brief on the Merits filed on behalf of Petitioner OMP Development, LLC., et al. has been granted. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE CONSIDERED. Petitioners brief is due March 19, 2015; Respondents brief is due April 8, 2015; Reply brief is due April 23, 2015.

Brief Finally Gets Filed in the Supreme by OMP Development, LLC !!! March 19, 2015.

Absurd is the focus of the brief.

Fifth Court of Appeals holding referenced as ABSURD.  The term absurd is found 57 times in the brief and its appendages:

Absurd result
Absurd results
Absurdity aside — and that’s just ONE page, page six.
Absurdity Doctrine
Absurdity Argument

– See more at:

Cause Number:  14-0706; Date Filed: 09/08/2014

Writ Denied by Supreme Court:


Party PartyType Representative
American Mechanical/Crawford Service Other interested party Mr. William W. Hancock
OMP Development LLC Petitioner Mr. Evan (Van) Lane Shaw
Ms. Janet R. Randle
Hydrotech Engineering Inc. Respondent Mr. D. Mark Davis
Mr. R. David Weaver
Mr. Eric L. Lindstrom
Swaback Partners PLLC Respondent Mr. D. Mark Davis
Mr. Eric L. Lindstrom
Mr. R. David Weaver
H.E. Jones & Company, Inc. Other interested party Mr. Chris C. Pappas
Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mira
Hunt & Joiner, Inc. Other interested party Mr. Richard E. Schellhammer
ChasCo Interiors, Inc. Other interested party Ms. L. Darlene Mitchell
Mr. John H. Barr II
Southwest Sealers, Inc. Other interested party Mr. William Stewart Shurtleff
Pavecon Commercial Concrete, Ltd. Other interested party Mr. William Reese Jones
Mr. Lane Phillip Farley
Lattimore Material Corp. Other interested party Mr. Ryan Gentry
G&D Pool & Spa, Inc. Other interested party Mr. Jeffery Mark Kershaw
Mr. William H. Chamblee
Caprock Specialty Contractors, Inc. Other interested party Mr. Eric Wilder McNeil
Quality Custom Rail & Metal, LLC Other interested party Mr. Samuel Joseph Polak
Mr. Franklin Perry
2600 Montgomery, LLC Petitioner Mr. Evan (Van) Lane Shaw
Ms. Janet R. Randle
ICI Construction, Inc. Other interested party Mr. David Surratt
Mr. John Stephen Kenefick
Mr. Jason Jung

Attorneys associated with the Law Offices of Van Shaw and 2014 Campaign Donations:  $16,000.

Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D'Metria Benson

Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D’Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D'Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D’Metria Benson



Law Office Van Shaw Contribution to D'Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Contribution to D’Metria Benson

– See more at:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s orders denying the motions to dismiss the third-party claims and cross-claims are AFFIRMED.

The trial court’s order denying Appellant SWABACK PARTNERS, PLLC’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth amended petition as to the claims against SWABACK is REVERSED and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion. 

JONES & COMPANY, INC. d/b/a LASTING IMPRESSIONS LANDSCAPE, AND 2600 MONTGOMERY, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellants SWABACK


Ten Hagen Excavating, Relator  

Cause Number: 05-14-00539-CV

Petition for Writ of Mandamus. May 2, 2014:    Link Here

Ten Hagen Excavating, Relator.  Cause Number: 05-14-00539-CV

Docket Here

NOTE HERE:  Aaron Spahr is with Jim Adler “The Texas Hammer.”  This law firm does not appear to have EVER donated to D’Metria Benson.

This makes this law firm ten times more respectable and admirable than any of those pouring money into her coffers.

It looks like Jim Adler “The Texas Hammer” is running on the law, the facts and his case.  GOOD FOR HIM.

Mandamus Granted Here
Party PartyType Representative
Lopez-Castro, Jose Real party in interest Aaron Spahr
Ten Hagen Excavating Inc. Relator Jay R. Downs
M. Gaddy Wells

– See more at:


James Lermon v. Minyard Food Stores and Rodney Lee

Reverse and Rendered

Appeal March 18, 2013 –  Link Here

Party PartyType Representative
Lermon, James Appellant Curtis L. Marsh
Bruce K. Thomas
Thomas Dean Malone
Minyard Food Stores, Inc., and Rodney Lee Appellee Matthew D. Stayton
David E. Keltner
Marianne Marsh Auld
David Hill Bradley


Trial Counsel Appellee:  WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, LLP

Kent Workman of Walters Balido & Crain, LLP served as an intern to D’Metria Benson after serving for ten years as a police officer in Memphis.

Trial Counsel Appellants: Curtis L. Marsh – The Law Firm of Curtis Marsh, PLLC

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that appellant/cross-appellee James Lermon take nothing.  It is ORDERED that appellees/cross-appellants Minyard Food Stores, Inc. and Rodney Lee recover their costs of this appeal from James Lermon.
Judgment entered this 19th day of November, 2014.
Petition for Review filed in the Supreme Court:  February 2015


In Re:  MetroPCS Communications, Inc., Deutsche Telecom, T-Mobile USA Inc. et al

 05-12-01577-CV  Date Filed: 11/19/2012  Petition Link Here
Writ Granted
In Re: MetroPCS Communications, Inc., Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Roger D. Linquist, W. Michael Barnes, Jack F. Callahan, Jr., C. Kevin Landry, Arthur C. Patterson, and James N. Perry, Jr. – See more at:
Party PartyType Representative
T-Mobile USA, Inc. Relator E. Leon Carter
Sean T. Hamada
Adam Golovoy … and derivatively MetroPCS Real Party in Interest Joe Kendall
Jamie Jean McKey
Willie Charles Briscoe
MetroPCS Communications, Inc. Relator Ben Taylor
Eric Lynn Johnson
Karl G. Dial
Brett C. Govett
Peter Andrew Stokes
Tate Seideman

– See more at:

E. Leon Carter Donations to D’Metria Benson:

E. Leon Carter Donation D'Metria Benson

E. Leon Carter Donation D’Metria Benson

E. Leon Carter Donations D'Metria Benson

E. Leon Carter Donations D’Metria Benson

Joe Kendall and Kendall Law Group Donations to D’Metria Benson:
$2,500 From Joe Kendall Personally 2014
$5,000 from Kendall Law Group February 2015
Kendall Law Group 2015 Donation D'Metria Benson

Kendall Law Group 2015 Donation D’Metria Benson

Joe Kendall Law Group Donation D'Metria Benson

Joe Kendall Law Group Donation D’Metria Benson


JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Sofia Borquez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Cresencio Borquez, Mercedes Borquez, individually, and Joel Borquez, individually
Appeal.  Cause Number: 05-14-00131-CV. Date Filed:  02/04/2014

– See more at:

Party PartyType Representative
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Appellant Gordon M. Shapiro
Jeffrey G. Hamilton
William D. Ellerman
Brad Nitschke  Jackson Walker LLP
Sofia Borquez, Mercedes Borquez, and Joel Borquez Appellee Jeffrey S. Levinger
Evan Lane (Van) Shaw
Daniel Hagood
Janet R. Randle

– See more at:

Jackson Walker LLP D’Metria Benson Campaign Contributions:

Previous donations in prior election years.

Attorneys associated with the Law Offices of Van Shaw and 2014 Campaign Donations:  $16,000.

Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D'Metria Benson

Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D’Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D'Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D’Metria Benson


Law Office Van Shaw Contribution to D'Metria Benson

Previous Years Contributions as Well

Ever Construction Corp & Jason Kang Sung S
Reversed and Rendered
Take Nothing
Cause Number:  05-13-00385-CV; 
Date Filed: 03/20/2013
Party PartyType Representative
Su, Sung Appellee Scott E. Hayes
Kichul Kim
Ever Construction Corp. and Jason Kang Appellant Andrew J. Holen
Julia F. Pendery

Party PartyType Representative

Batchelor, Paul Hedley Appellee Bruce Long
Brooks, JoAnn Adele Appellant JoAnn Adele Brooks
– See more at:


In Re: VSDH Vaquero Venture, Ltd. 

Mandamus Granted
(Link Here)
05-14-00958-CV; 07/25/2014
Hickok, Doug Intervenor Kenneth B. Chaiken
Kenneth P. and Betsy L. Gross Real party in interest Steven E. Aldous
VSDH Vaquero Venture, Ltd. Relator Evan Lane (Van) Shaw
Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D'Metria Benson

Van Shaw 2015 Personal Donation D’Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D'Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Donation D’Metria Benson


Law Office Van Shaw Contribution to D'Metria Benson

Law Office Van Shaw Contribution to D’Metria Benson

Anyone who has practiced in D’Metria’s Court knows she often REFUSES to reduce rulings to written Orders.

This Mandamus was based upon an oral ruling and successful.  This one is worth reading … to understand her bias and the way she operates.

Link Here:

 An oral ruling may be subject to mandamus review if the ruling is clear, specific, enforceable, and adequately shown by the record. See In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). An appellate court can determine whether an oral ruling meets these criteria by reviewing the reporter’s record. Id. We conclude the oral ruling in this case meets the criteria.

Total Donations for this Campaign Period:  $16,000


Failing to Follow the Law – Demonstrating Incompetency – Failing to Treat Attys with Dignity

D'Metria Benson Certified as Qualified Dallas Committee on an Qualified Judiciary. That be a meaningful designation and organization.

D’Metria Benson Certified as Qualified Dallas Committee on an Qualified Judiciary. That must be a meaningful designation and organization.

Etta Mullin and D’Metria Benson ran neck-and-neck for the lowest DBA Judicial Poll results.  Etta Mullin was defeated in the primary. Mullin lost despite endorsements from County Commissioner John Wiley Price and U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson.  The original three Judicial Conduct claims heard in spring 2015 were not resolved in her favor; she appealed.  During the appeal process and after her defeat more attorneys felt comfortable in testifying consequently, rather than the original three attorneys in the appealed case 11 attorneys testified.  One of the original three attorney claimants was denied access to her Court because he was wearing shorts after knee surgery.

Etta Mullin denied the claims of attorneys who testified in the appealed ethics case brought by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct indicating they lied and had conspired against her.  Mullin had requested a Special Court of Review to be appointed to review the admonition earlier in 2015.  The claims against Mullin were failing to treat lawyers with patience, dignity and courtesy, failing to follow the law, and demonstrating incompetence.

The original (and appealed) public admonition regarding judge Etta Mullin found “created the appearance of bias by her poor judicial demeanor.” The admonition referenced local, statewide and national media published critical articles about Mullin while she was running for re-election in 2014 “for alleged inefficient courtroom management skills and for alleged discourteous, impatient and undignified treatment of certain attorneys.”

The admonition also notes that Mullin received media attention in 2014 when she declined to allow Dallas criminal defense attorney James Lee Bright to appear in her court wearing shorts.  One attorney stated in media reports that “he actively avoided Judge Mullin’s courtroom, as did a large number of other attorneys, due to her poor judicial temperament,” according to the admonition.

The Special Court of Review concluded in their admonition that “Judge Mullin’s discourteous and undignified treatment of attorneys Wyatt, Bright and those attorneys quoted in the media reports (who confirmed their experiences during the course of the commission’s investigation) was inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as a judge.

Susan Hawk, Dallas District Attorney requested and advisory opinion from the Texas Attorney General after the Dallas County Commissioners Court voted to approve covering the legal fees of Etta Mullin connected with the ethics case.  The attorney general noted these were not fees required to be paid on behalf of a judge.  The distinction made by Paxton was Etta Mullin was not being ‘sued’ as statutorily referenced.  Rather she was involved in a disciplinary action which she had elevated through appeal.

Etta Mullin Rated Qualified by Committee for a Qualified Judiciary

Etta Mullin was rated as qualified to hold office in the Dallas County judiciary by the non-partisan Committee for a Qualified Judiciary .

In 2010, the year Judge Mullin was certified as qualified, the  CQJ invited each of the 40 candidates who filed in the 17 contested races in the Democratic Party primary to participate in the CQJ’s evaluation process.  Candidates were evaluated based on their legal abilities, integrity, judicial temperament and commitment to the fair and impartial administration of justice.

In addition to personal interviews, the CQJ’s evaluation panels reviewed public records as well as questionnaires submitted by the candidates, and conducted reference and background checks. In many of the contested races, each of the candidates was found to be qualified.

D’Metria Benson – Favorite Deposition Quotes

D'Metria Benson Deposition Junde 13, 2013, Henderson County, Texas

D’Metria Benson Deposition June 13, 2013, Henderson County, Texas


Oral Deposition: D’Metria Benson – June 13, 2013 … Link Here

Pleadings in Cause Number: 214-97
Henderson County Court
Estate of Harold E. Benson, Deceased
Link Here

See Deposition Summary and Excerpts Below. You will have to remind yourself, this is actually the deposition of a JUDGE.



173rd Judicial District Docket: Cause Number 2011A-0096 – Trespass to Try Title and Trespass Date: 1/21/2011

County Court Henderson County Texas: In Re: Estate Harold Eugene Benson No. 214-97

Original Application to Probate Will Transferred

Application for Probate in Henderson County, Texas: Cause No. 51-01 CL Estate of Harold E. Benson Date: 9/4/2001

Estate of Betty Connor Benson – The Pleadings: Tarrant County Probate Court, Cause Number 94-209-2



See: Texas Center for Legal Ethics

(5) Practice of Law. A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.

In August of 2013, D’Metria Benson files another pleading in the 173rd Judicial District Cause Number 2011A-0096 – Trespass to Try Title and Trespass.

It appears that D’Metria is attempting to act pro se – for herself alone exclusive of the other two defendants, Harolyn Benson, and Harold Benson. The pleadings indicate Harolyn Benson is represented by J.B. Bailey. No counsel appears on the record for Harold (Raymond) Benson nor does his address appear on these pleadings; he is unrepresented based on the Certificates of Service signed by D’Metria, which means in essence the acts of D’Metria as an attorney impact Harold (Raymond) Benson, named defendant, and now appear to impact them all with the “SHAM” affidavit ruling by the Appellate Court and Supreme Court.

You find yourself in County Court at Law Number One you might want to copy D’Metria’s Plea to the Jurisdicition and Motion to Transfer Venue and give that a try to get out of her Court:

Plea to the Jurisdiction, Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue, and Subject to the Aforesaid Denial. February 2011.

D’Metria Benson’s Motion to Dismiss and Plea to the Jurisdiction. August 2013.

Review the Docket and decide. Was this pro se? Technically? Maybe. (Link Here)


Attorney’s Fees for Trespass to Try Title and Trespass Remain Unpaid

(The Court Reporter can provide further documentation of D’Metria credibility issues.)

Patrick Thurmond
100 East Tyler Suite 207
Athens, Texas 75751
Phone: (903) 675-6107


Trespass to Try Title and Trespass Deposition of D’Metria Benson

Issues Summary and Timeline

Nutshell: D’Metria’s grandfather was granted a life estate from the heirs of the former owner of the property to enable him to continue to live on the land. D’Metria now claims an interest in that property located in Henderson County, Texas, and seeks venue in Tarrant County under the jurisdiction of the Tarrant County Probate Court Number Two. The actions for Trespass and Trespass to Try Title were occasioned as a result of placing a chain across the gate to the property by the Bensons and D’Metria’s entering the property and taking items from the property.

The pleadings appear to be sound in terms of Plaintiffs’ demand for attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court has ruled. Defendants appear to be responsible for those attorneys fees but reportedly have taken NO initiative to settle that obligation without additional hearings and litigation. It would seem that the testimony of BOTH Lorraine Raggio and Judge Jim Parsons would be relevant in determining those fees and whether or not the actions of D’Metria were taken in goodwill of bad faith.

At issue are 47 acres located in Henderson County, Texas. (P13, L14)

Henry Connor received Deed from Fuller heirs – a life estate, in the 47 acres. (P10, L1 and P14, L8) (P17, l8-13)

Henry Connor lived on the 47 acres until his death. (P11, L4-5)

Henry Connor, a widower and father of Betty Connor Benson, his only child, and grandfather to D’Metria Benson, died in 1988. (P5 L8, P6 L3)

Betty Connor Benson, and her husband, Harold Benson, lived in Fort Worth and would visit the 47 acre property on the weekends. (P24, L22) (P25, L5-13)

Betty Connor Benson died in 1993. (P6, L3)

Betty Connor Benson died intestate: see Estate of Betty Connor Benson, 94-209-2 Tarrant County, Texas.

The separate property of Betty Connor Benson became the property of Harold Benson.

Harold Benson married Doris Gaston Benson roughly six months later after the death of Betty Connor, in 1993.

After Harold Benson married Doris Gaston Benson, and before his death, D’Metria saw her father only twice. (P37, L10-14)

Harold Benson and Doris Gaston Benson reside on the 47 acres with Doris’ two children, it appears. They did not reside in the Fort Worth home. It appears Harolyn Benson resided in the Fort Worth home, where her mother and father had resided or at the very least maintained and had some association with that home.

Harold Benson dies and leaves a written will. (P7)

D’Metria Benson claims an interest in the 47 acre life estate in Hnderson County Texas granted to her grandfather under several legal theories.

D’Metria claims possession is 9/10th’s of the law. (P16, L1-2)

D’Metria claims ownership interest as an heir though she never lived there. (P15, L7, L23, L25)

D’Metria claims her proportional share of 25 percent based upon the residuary clause of her grandfather’s will. (P13, L20-25)

Judge Jim Parson: D’Metria Has “No Recollection” of Communication

D’Metria not aware of the lawsuit against the heirs of M.L. Fuller until this lawsuit in 2011. D’Metria does not remember contacting Judge Jim Parsons of Palestine Texas, who has a focus on real estate law and an office in Athen, Texas, about this lawsuit. Does not know if Judge Parsons had the authority to contact Steve Stark about the lawsuit against the Fuller heirs. Does not remember asking Judge Jim Parsons to review this lawsuit. Does not know under what authority Judge Jim Parsons would have contacted Steve Stark about this lawsuit. (P 34 – 36)

Q. There was no deed to you Mom relative to the 47 acres in dispute; is that correct?

A. Not that I’m aware of.

Q. And you were aware of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs [Shareke Gaston and Tarsiemon Everage] against the heirs of M.L. Fuller, right?

A. Not until this lawsuit.

Q. Not until this lawsuit?

A. Not until this lawsuit.

Q. Okay, and so not until this lawsuit, was was not filed until 2011 — (P 34)

A. Yes.

Q. — and not even in 2011?

A. I think it was only recently that I became aware of that because for a while the suit was in Tarrant County Probate Court.

Q. All right. And I’m referring to Exhibit Two. So, if you would look at Exhibit Two, let me make sure that we’re clear on this.

You were not aware of this lawsuit?

A. I’ve never seen Exhibit Two.

Q. That’s not the question. The question was, were you aware of the lawsuit relating to the judgment marked as Exhibit Two.

A. Not until this lawsuit was filed.

Q. Okay, I will tell you I receive a telephone call from Judge Jim Parsons —

A. Uh-huh.

Q. After he left the bench, he made a statement to me that he had been contacted by you regarding a partition or intervention in this lawsuit and asking me to explain to him the substance of the suit and so forth.

Do you recall contacting Judge Parsons?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. You don’t?

A. No. (P 35)

Q. Do you know Judge Parsons?

A. I’ve met Judge Parsons.

Q. And so if Judge Parsons called me and said he was inquiring on you behalf, that would be false?

A. I don’t know if it would be false or not.

Q. Did Judge Parsons have any authority to request information from you — to inquire of me as to the suit reflected in Exhibit Two?

A. I don’t know what authority or what Judge Parsons would have had or would he would not have.

Q. Do you know that there — there were– were people that know Judge Parsons someone may have inquired of him? Well, they would have known about the lawsuit in order to direct you to him to me?

A. No they wouldn’t know about the lawsuit.

Q. He inquired about the lawsuit.

A. He inquired about the lawsuit?

Q. He called me inquiring about the lawsuit and my question is, what that something that you authorized or were aware of?

A. I don’t believe I was aware of it.

Q. Did you authorize it?

A. I don’t know that I did.

Q. Do you know that you didn’t?

A. I have no recollection. (P 36)

Q. So if Judge Parsons said so, you wouldn’t dispute it?

A. I might.

Q. On what basis?

A. On the basis that as we sit here I have no recollection of it.

Q. All right. You do know where Judge Parsons resides?

A. No.

Q. Do you know where his primary office is?

A. No. (P 37)

Judge Jim Parsons, former President of the State Bar of Texas and Judge (Link Here)



Excerpts from Deposition of D’Metria Benson (Deposition)

P 6-7:

Q. Okay, and your father left a written Will?

A. I assume so.

Q. And you don’t know?

A. Well, I was never included in the probate, and I believe you probated the will so —

Q. You were aware of the probate proceedings, were you not.

A. No, I was not. I was never informed of them.

Q. Okay, the[n] — you had no knowledge of probate proceedings of Harold E. Benson?

A. No.

Q. But you suspect it was probated — the Will was probated in Henderson County, Texas?

A. Yes

See pleadings filed by D’Metria Benson in County Court of Henderson, County, Texas, Cause Number 214-97, Estate of Henry Benson, Deceased:

Cause Number: 214-97
Henderson County Court
Estate of Harold E. Benson, Deceased
Link here for pleadings which include:

Petition for Accounting and Distribution, Cause Number 214-97, signed by D’Metria Benson

Letter to the Clerk of the Probate Court, Cause Number 214-97, signed by D’Metria Benson

Motion to Transfer Venue Cause Number 214-97, signed by D’Metria Benson with unusual venue argument showing “personal hand delivery”

Response to Motion for Rehearing in Connection with Petition for Accounting and Distribution, Cause Number 214-97, signed by D’Metria Benson


D’Metria Benson and Common Law Rules for Property!

Brilliant:  “A. The rules of common law state that when you tried to give a devise or bequest of a property that there was a certain way that you had to do it.

And if you didn’t do it in that manner, it resulted in not what the grantors’ intent was but a fee simple absolute.”

P 17 – 18

Q. Well, my understanding is that the deed, Exhibit 1, is a deed from J.L. Fuller heirs to your grandfather of a life estate; do you agree?

A. That’s what the deed says, yes.

Q. Do you agree that it conveyed a life estate?

A. I think it purported to convey a life estate.

Q. Do you think the — it in actuality conveyed something more than a life estate?

A. I think that there’s a possibility that it did.

Q. Based on what?

A. Common law.*

Q. And can you explain that to me?

A. The rules of common law state that when you tried to give a devise or bequest of a property that there was a certain way that you had to do it. And if you didn’t do it in that manner, it resulted in not what the grantors’ intent was but a fee simple absolute.

Q. Okay. You are referring to Shelly’s Rule —

A. No.

Q. — that we studied in school?

Q. Then the concept, what’s wrong — or what about this deed makes it something other than a life estate deed?

A. The devisee from the grantor to a remainder that cannot be ascertained.

Q. In other words, you say the deed is defective because the identity of the remainderman cannot be ascertained?

A. I think there’s a very real possibility that that’s the case, yes.


*Common Law Rules Abolished in the State of Texas Statutorily January 1, 1984

Texas Property Code:  Link Here

Sec. 5.041. FUTURE ESTATES. 

A person may make an inter vivos conveyance of an estate of freehold or inheritance that commences in the future, in the same manner as by a will.


(a) The common-law rules known as the rule in Shelley’s case, the rule forbidding a remainder to the grantor’s heirs, the doctrine of worthier title, and the doctrine or rule prohibiting an existing lien upon part of a homestead from extending to another part of the homestead not charged with the debts secured by the existing lien upon part of the homestead do not apply in this state.

(b) A deed, will, or other conveyance of property in this state that limits an interest in the property to a particular person or to a class such as the heirs, heirs of the body, issue, or next of kin of the conveyor or of a person to whom a particular interest in the same property is limited is effective according to the intent of the conveyor.

(c) Status as an heir or next of kin of a conveyor or the failure of a conveyor to describe a person in a conveyance other than as a member of a class does not affect a person’s right to take or share in an interest as a conveyee.

(d) Subject to the intention of a conveyor, which controls unless limited by law, the membership of a class described in this section and the participation of a member in a property interest conveyed to the class are determined under this state’s laws of descent and distribution.

(e) This section does not apply to a conveyance taking effect before January 1, 1964.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3483, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1510, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


(a) Within the limits of the rule against perpetuities, a court shall reform or construe an interest in real or personal property that violates the rule to effect the ascertainable general intent of the creator of the interest. A court shall liberally construe and apply this provision to validate an interest to the fullest extent consistent with the creator’s intent.

(b) The court may reform or construe an interest under Subsection (a) of this section according to the doctrine of cy pres by giving effect to the general intent and specific directives of the creator within the limits of the rule against perpetuities.

(c) If an instrument that violates the rule against perpetuities may be reformed or construed under this section, a court shall enforce the provisions of the instrument that do not violate the rule and shall reform or construe under this section a provision that violates or might violate the rule.

(d) This section applies to legal and equitable interests, including noncharitable gifts and trusts, conveyed by an inter vivos instrument or a will that takes effect on or after September 1, 1969, and this section applies to an appointment made on or after that date regardless of when the power was created.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3484, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 895, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.

Criminal Conduct and the Removal of a Sitting Judge in Texas

While a felony conviction is grounds for suspension or removal of a sitting judge, only selected misdemeanors such as official oppression and record tampering or crimes of moral turpitude can result in suspension or removal.