­

National Investigative Reporting

Everyone that wants to copy what has been posted has done so.

This information has been compiled, arguments made and turned over to an investigative journalist.

It is time to let the national media address these issues.

Postings will be in abeyance for the next few months as these issues are further addressed and investigated.  Each person involved will be contacted for comment.

It is time to let professional investigative journalists examine these issues and draw their conclusions.

A fish rots from the head.  When Nathan Hecht adopted the money is speech position for his protection and ignored it in the Subcommittee’s ex parte review, the basis for the problem with D’Metria Benson became more pronounced.  Citizens United supports that theory as well, i.e. money is speech but with such liberties obligations should come.  If money is speech then money repersents an ex parte communication.

The irony that the Caris Life Sciences law firm would head the Ex Parte Supreme Court subcommittee heightened the need for scrutiny of the judiciary.  The Fifth Court of Appeals position in the Carlos Cortez donations from Tillotson maintained the status quo.

My position has been made and I am shocked so many have reviewed it (even indirectly).  Now it is time for national media to begin their scrutiny.

The road map has been drawn, the route chosen will be those of the ‘professionals.’  D’Metria Benson’s conduct is often despicable but it is supported by choices made above her and we all suffer.

D’Metria Fund Raising Begins Again In

Links will be added over the next week to create a full pathfinder.

McClure Opinion and Jackson Walker Argument

Justice Nathan Hecht, Chief Justice Texas Supreme Court

Ethics fine ultimately reduced to $1K from $29K.

Opinion:  Ann Crawford McClure – Chief Justice Eighth District Court Appeals El Paso

In Re Hecht. 213 S.W.3d 547 (2006)
In re Honorable Nathan HECHT, Texas Supreme Court Justice. No. A-2006-1.
Special Court of Review Appointed by the Supreme Court.
October 20, 2006. Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Charles L. Babcock, Houston, for Petitioner.
Seana Willing, Executive Director, State Com’n on Judicial Conduct of Austin, TX, Mark Greenwald, San Antonio, for The Commission.
Before Justices FITZGERALD,[1] McCLURE,[2] and MAZZANT[3].

NY Times Overview

Supreme Court Subcommittee on Ex parte communications:  Haynes and Boone Partner, Nina Cortell, chairwoman.

Jackson Walker argument made on behalf of Nathan Hecht contrary to position taken by same attorney on Ex Parte Communications.

Russel Roden, formerly of Jackson Walker, repeated looses to D’Metria Benson.

Jackson Walker attorney, Charles L. Babcock, opinion and comments on ex parte subcommittee issue: link here.

Charles L. Babcock argument here on behalf of Nathan Hecht:  link here.

Nina Cortell donations:  link here.

Caris Life Sciences and Two Large Donors

Caris Life Science:  Haynes and Boone Partner Brainin and Kernoodle (with the donation to Ada Brown) Donations link here.

Caris Life Science:  Baron Budd – history with both D’Metria Benson and Former County Court at Law Judge Russell Roden and former partner with the aforementioned, Jackson Walker

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2010).  Roden ruled against Baron and Budd.  D’Metria ruled for.  Overturned on appeal.

Donations made by those involved to D’Metria Benson, Appellate and Supreme Court.

Haynes and Boone donations here: D’Metria, national, Fifth Court Appeals, Texas Supreme Court.

Baron and Budd questionably timed donations:  link here.

Fifth Court Appeals and Questionably Timed Donations.

Jeffry Tillotson and Mike Lynn donations and comments here.

Opinion here.

Who is Carlos Cortez:  Here.

Donations and timing, case involved here.

Appellate Court Justices rendering the opinion:  Here.

Law 360 Background

Carlos Cortez is important in this case because of similarities in claims of bias based upon ‘questionably timed donations.’  These donations were found to be wholly acceptable and NOT a basis for recusal.  No one has claimed D’Metria Benson’s continued solicitations are in any way unlawful.  In fact, it was Carlos Cortez that sealed the Dallas County standard, donations made the day before and day of pivotal hearings are soundly lawful.  If D’Metria Benson says she is not biased, we must take her word, but examine her record as well.

The case of Staff Care. v. Moberly includes a Motion to Recuse Carlos Cortez which alleges that the defendants’ lead counsel, Jeffrey Tillotson, a partner in Dallas Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, made $7,500 in total campaign donations to Cortez, with $5,000  immediately before the hearing and $2,500 the day after the judge signed a pivotal order in Tillotson’s clients’ favor.

The recusal motion also included details of $186,353 Cortez allegedly paid in campaign money to numerous attorneys who represented him in secreting information about his conduct with women and cocaine.  The Sixth Court of Appeals allowed the records of a woman who stated that Cortez sexually assaulted her when she was a child and another of a woman who said Cortez gave her money to buy cocaine to be unsealed.

In the case of  Cortez v. Johnston, a Nov. 1, 2010, defamation petition Cortez filed against Coyt Randal “Randy” Johnston, a Dallas attorney, Cortez alleged in that petition that Johnston created false rumors about Cortez to attract a political opponent to run against Cortez. Johnston denied those allegations. Johnston had secured the sworn statements in connection with his defense of Cortez’s allegations.

Robert Tobey, Johnston’s law partner who also made an appearance in the case, testified that he and his law firm were not hired for purposes of recusal. He also testified that Cortez had a years-old standing order in his court to recuse himself from any cases filed in his court by the Johnston & Tobey law firm.

Van Shaw and Janet Randle

“For what ever reason we do well in D’Metria Benson’s Court.”

Litigation and appellate history in D’Metria Benson’s Court here.

Borquez Case – highly likely they would win in trial and lose on appeal.   Now in Supreme Court.

Jackson Walker for the defense.  Donations here.  Argument here.

Donations here for D’Metria Benson and Russell Roden.

D’Metria Benson

Deposition, Donors, Campaign Finance filings spreadsheets and discrepancies here.

Sham opinion in D’Metria Benson’s case by Appellate Court here, Supreme Court here.

Louise Raggio road trip to Hendersou County, Texas.

Sworn Testimony, D’Metria Benson here.

Large donations timed to filings in her court, spread sheet here:

Mandamus history here.

Appeals here.

Outrageous cases here.

Russell Roden

Employment history

Jackson Walker

Election results.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2010)  Baron Budd.  History.

When this is graphed out the very circular and insular nature of these decisions and choices is visually clear, including the Fifth Court of Appeals that based on this narrative seems less involved.  Once it is graphed with donors, including Lynn and Tillotson, the circularity here is more obvious.  I will get this graphed over the next month.

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Twitter