Unending Pressure to GIVE, GIVE, GIVE

Law students from across the country have found DMetriaBenson.org in their arguments for or against Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar.

Judicial Gratitude - How Far Does It Go?

Judicial Gratitude – How Far Does It Go?

Two Points

This website does a very poor job of underscoring the harm caused by D’Metria Benson.  A review of publications and comments from attorneys ably represents the vast outrage of attorneys that D’Metria Benson is a Judge.  It is important to fully grasp the harm done to citizens.

The list of donors published on this website with timeline represents a good indication of attorneys with cases in CCL One.  As the published list found on this website indicates, D’Metria Benson’s program of Five Campaign Finance Solicitations was effective in raising money for a woman widely regarded as the worst judge in Dallas County, Texas.

Haynes & Boone is very good about giving funds at the earliest possible time in the window that contributions are allowed to the maximum number Judges and Justices.  This protects Haynes & Boone from claims donations were made in conjunction with a specific case.  Few firms can afford this course of conduct.  In the State of Texas the window for contribution for a four year period of judicial service is just under two years.*  This means that for almost half the time a Judge in on the bench, donations can be made.

List of Donor Attorneys with Names and Dates of Cases Filed in CCL1

Donor attorneys who have given money in conjunction with cases actually filed in her Court have not been highlighted with the exception of Fontanive v. CDx.

Many have pleaded their position to not be a focus of review in that their contributions, timed with important cases filed in CCL1, were made by firms and attorneys who only did what they perceived they had to do in County Court at Law Number One of Dallas County, Texas.

An unpublished list of attorneys, firms, with dates and cases filed in CCL One can be forwarded to you for your arguments.  This was composed by reviewing each law firm and attorney who made a donation and matched with cases filed in CCL One.  It has not and will not be published.  It is both revealing and heartbreaking that this is a reflection of the judicial system in the State of Texas.

The Texas Election Code applies to general, special, and primary elections held in the State of Texas:  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=EL

The Texas Ethics Commission governs Campaign Finance Guidelines:  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm

While the Justices file with the State Ethics Commission:  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/dfs/search_CF.htm

Judges file with the County:  http://www.dallascounty.org/campaign_finance.php

Window of Time for Solicitations and Donations for Judges

*  The period begins 210 days before the judge or judicial candidate is required to file an application to be on the ballot or to file an application for nomination by convention. (If the election is for an unexpired term, the period begins on the later of 210 days before the date an application for a place on the ballot or for nomination by convention for the office is required to be filed or the date a vacancy in the office occurs.)  The period ends 120 days after the election in which the candidate last appeared on the ballot, regardless of whether the candidate has an opponent in that election.  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm#ACCEPT_CONTR

D’Metria Benson Maximized and Optimized the Window of Time for Judicial Donations


“The ask is undignified. The give is compelled.”

Justice for Sale?
Is Your Judge for Sale?

Only nine states currently allow judges to solicit donations directly for their campaigns, but in those states, “the road to victory begins with the solicitation of money.”

Wallace Jefferson, the former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, has written. “The ‘ask’ is undignified, and the ‘give’ is fairly compelled.”

For those fighting to insulate judges from electoral politics, the elimination of the fundraising ban would be yet another step in the wrong direction.

[Is Your Judge For Sale?   Mother Jones, November/December 2014]

UNDIGNIFIED?  Too charitable a term.  The ASK exploits the trust the State, the voters and morality imposes upon the responsibilities, duties and privilege of the judiciary.  UNDIGNIFIED?  What utter whitewashing.


Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
January 7, 2015

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 20, 2015, addressing whether candidates for judicial office possess a constitutional right to directly solicit campaign contributions from potential donors. The transcript is available here:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-1499_bq7c.pdf

Brennan Center Review.  Williams v. Yulee:  https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/williams-yulee-v-florida-bar

The Atlantic.  When Can a Judge Ask Write Me a Check:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/when-can-a-judge-ask-write-me-a-check/384606/

Brief of Professors of Law, Economics, and Political Science as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

AmericanBar.org, 12/23/14

[S]tudies have shown that campaign contributions from business interests, lawyers, and lobbyists can be correlated with favorable decisions in cases before recipient judges. For example, a comprehensive national study of 175,000 campaign contribution records and 2,345 state supreme court opinions — each related to business interests and published between 2010 and 2012 — concluded that elected state supreme court justices receiving at least 25 percent of their campaign contributions from business interests voted in favor of business interests in just over 62 percent of cases, whereas elected state supreme court justices receiving no more than 1 percent of their campaign contributions from the business sector voted in favor of business interests in only 46 percent of cases. Because approximately one third of cases before state supreme courts involve business litigants, there is much at stake.

Other studies corroborate the connection between campaign contributions and judicial decision-making. One nationwide study of 21,000 state supreme court decisions published between 1995 and 1998 found that campaign contributions from business groups, labor groups, medical groups, and attorney groups were associated with favorable votes in relevant cases before partisan-elected recipient judges. Studies have also identified a relationship between campaign contributions and voting patterns in labor and arbitration cases. Finally, several researchers have verified empirically that campaign contributions from pro-plaintiff donors can affect judicial behavior.


In fact, empirical analysis demonstrates that contributions to judges who are not likely to share the contributor’s view of the law have a much stronger association with subsequent voting patterns than do contributions to more like-minded judges. Empirical analysis also shows that the correlation between campaign contributions and voting patterns tends to disappear when judges face mandatory retirement. These findings suggest that the effect of campaign contributions on judicial decision-making cannot be attributed entirely to donor support for candidates with sympathetic judicial ideologies.


The General Consensus

The general consensus is the Supreme Court will lean toward free speech and state’s rights.  The suggestion will be that the voting public vote out those judges who abuse the system.

This system is corrosive to everyone involved … and has been for years and years and years.  Neither the judiciary nor the litigants benefit from a system that is so easily manipulated and exploited.

Attorney Donors and Docketed Cases in CCL One

What Do You Do when the

Legal System Fails Your Client


CDx v. Fontanive

The case of CDx v. Fontanive filed in CCL One underscores the very real problem with campaign contributions in D’Metria Benson’s Court.  Why would two competent attorneys make donations which served to equal their firms contributions to D’Metria Benson with Haynes & Boone’s contributions.  These donations were made during the period of time that an important hearing was held in their case — and when that hearing did not go well, the attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal.  The interlocutory appeal underscores their strong belief in the merits of their case.  Because a good record of the hearing exist in the 907 pages filed in the Amended Appellant’s Brief this case is examined more closely.

When you have a Judge actively soliciting funds FIVE times during the solicitation window – it becomes fairly clear, she’s serious about contributions.  Very few, extremely few firms can match Haynes & Boones giving power.  Consequently, the donations in CCL One indicate a pattern of attorneys coming in and doing the best they can to give donations when they have a case before the Court.  This is legal, all legal.

Fontanive has a good claim.  She’s got good attorneys.  Baron & Budd had already donated roughly $4,000 to D’Metria.  Why would the two competent Baron & Budd attorneys feel the need to donate more to level the donations to match those of Haynes & Boone.  Their donations were made weeks before this hearing?  See donor information below.   A Judge who has actively solicited donations FIVE times from attorneys who practice in her Court over a 23 month period, puts a great deal of pressure on the Bar to GIVE, GIVE, GIVE.

“Not Our First Rodeo”

Haynes & Boone starring in "Rodeo Kings and a Fist Full of Dollars"

Haynes and Boone Stars In Video: “Fist Full of Dollars – Not Our First Rodeo.”

Tough Guys for Sure!


You may read the interaction between the Court and attorneys here:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=9a572ecb-d5dd-4f6a-92be-327ab1d372bc&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=081f303c-f583-46fc-befa-7c07819a1133

“Not our first rodeo …” found at page 904 by Ms. Brainin.

THE COURT: Very careful crafting  prevented a removal to the federal court. 

MS. BRAININ: Well, it’s not our first  rodeo, Your Honor.

 Anyway, we — so we don’t think this has  anything to do with her constitutional rights, her  expression, her first amendment rights, her ability to 10 petition thefederal court. And we have submitted reams  of evidence. And what I’d like to do is, if the Court  has any question for us, Mr. Kernodle will walk you  through the evidence — the clear and convincing  evidence we’ve got on prong two just to — just to make  the Court belt-and-suspenders comfortable that this case 16 should not be dismissed under the statute at this point.  And, again, this is, as counsel said at  the very beginning, it’s only the breach ofcontract  claim they’re talking about.

THE COURT: All right. Well, if it’s only the breach of contract claim, does that mean if I find  that the breach of contract claim is not valid and the  other two are that the case still stays here?

You should read the interaction itself … and it gets kind of strange when D’Metria Benson begins to ask about “legislative intent” rather than focusing on the actual statute.  There’s no point in further dissent.  That sinking feeling sets in.   D’Metria’s out of her depth, unprepared for the hearing, and much to their chagrin, there is no way in hell, these attorneys are going to win.  They’re caught like dogs of war, the locking pin is gone, the hand grenade’s been thrown, and there’s nothing left to do but duck and cover.  Not a first.

There are thousands of ways to say fuck you – but one of best to say it and really mean it, is found in Appellant’s Amended Brief.  Because in the end, D’Metria makes whores of us all.

All this must be weighed against that pesky, long winded case where 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.  So, if you want to be technical, and the law is a technical business, it’s not Ms. Clancy’s first rodeo either.  Ouch, that reverse and render really, really hurt ———- everyone.


A Closer Look

A very close look at some attorney donors and their cases docketed in County Court at Law Number One … coming.


 Did you read my brief, Your Honor?

Your brief was rather convoluted!

… and the attorney was heard to murmur under his breath, yeah, for a third grader.

Your Honor, it was the most basic of constitutional law.


A review of the donors to D’Metria Benson’s campaign reflect a “SUDDEN” interest in contributing, once a major case has been filed in her Court.  A pattern appears of donors historically having never donated, suddenly making a major contribution.

D'Metria Benson Judicial Evaluation Polls

Dallas County Judicial Evaluation Polls


The timing of these contributions is _______________!  (You fill in the blank.)

a.  Coincidental

b.  Curious

c.  Revealing

d.  Expected

e.  Consistent with a Judge who held FIVE fund raisers

f.  Consistent with a Judge with a 77% rating regarding partiality


FIVE scheduled fund raisers are helpful in reminding attorneys how important donations can be.

Texas Campaign Finance Guidelines specify the window for donations:  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/whatsnew/jcoh_contribution_period_2014-2015.htm

Candidates seeking an office that will be filled at the November 4, 2014, general election may accept political contributions during a time period that begins on May 13, 2013.

Ending Date.  The time period ends on one of the following dates, as applicable:  March 4, 2015, for candidates who last appeared on the ballot in the general election.

A review of the County Court at Law Number One Docket reveals an incredibly strong, indisputable correlation between attorneys with cases in CCL One and both the actual donation and the timing of the donation.

Over the next few months attorneys, their donations, and cases filed in CCL One will be examined.  What recourse do clients have when they cannot afford a Mandamus or Appeal — and rulings in CCL One are blatantly wrong?

Justice without bias!  Really?

Donations and Contributions have NO Influence Here!


Two $Five K Club Members Find their Way to the Fifth Court of Appeals with a Shameful Arrogance

Marcellus: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Horatio: Heaven will direct it.
Marcellus: Nay, let’s follow him.

Act 1, Scene 4.  Hamlet *

*  Hamlet faces his  dilemma.  Should he uphold the divine right of kings to do as they please or should he avenge his father’s death, for if he did not, none other would dare.

This ain't our first rodeo, YOUR HONOR!  Haynes and Boone to D'Metria Benson

This ain’t our first rodeo, YOUR HONOR! Haynes and Boone to D’Metria Benson, CCL One.


05-14-01391-CV Court of Appeals Fifth Judicial District Texas

County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Cause No. CC-14-01736-A


PROPOSED Order signed:  October 9, 2014

Notice filed:  October 28, 2014

… But, as CDx’s counsel told the state county court at law [i.e. Haynes & Boone] the Honorable Judge D’Metria Benson presiding, CDx did not want its claims to be heard by the federal court presiding over this case, and thus pleaded that, no matter what, CDx would not ask for any amount over $71,000.00 (CR 293):

Judge Benson: Very careful crafting prevented a removal to the federal court.

Haynes & Boone, CDx Counsel: Well, it’s not our first rodeo, Your Honor.

[What shameful arrogance belies this statement?

Is this the arrogance of a supreme donor?

Would this arrogant remark have been made in the Federal case in Federal Court?

Sounds more like an entitled frat boy.  Perhaps she was quoting the most infamous of frat boys to make that statement, George W. Bush in November 2006.

See:  The Economist.  George Bush’s legacy.  The frat boy ships out.  Few people will mourn the departure of the 43rd president

There has historically been reported a dynamic that evolves in D’Metria Benson’s Court, CCL One, which encourages one party’s counsel to understand their cause of action will be received favorably, while the other party is routinely overruled – with an indifference to the laws of the State of Texas, the United States, and the constitutions of both.  The law in CCL One is what D’Metria says it is.  This could be the case here.  In the Nightmare Before Christmas, D’Metria Style, this conduct is referenced as “Creepy Demeanor.”]

Ms. Fontanive filed a Motion to Dismiss the state court breach of contract claim under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the “TCPA”) (App. B).

The 3 CDx later filed a First Amended Petition additionally alleging fraud and fraud in the inducement. CR 285-294. Should this appeal be in her favor, Ms. Fontanive will request under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.003(b) that the trial court enlarge the time to file motions to dismiss these claims.  “RR” signifies the Reporter’s Record. ix CPA creates an early-dismissal mechanism intended to “encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law” while simultaneously protecting the rights of persons with meritorious claims. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.002.

The TCPA applies to protect Ms. Fontanive’s participation in the Whistleblower lawsuit, because the TCPA protects Texas citizens exercising their right to petition by means of participating in judicial proceedings. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001(4)(A)(i), § 27.005(b).

Judge Benson denied Ms. Fontanive’s Motion to Dismiss. CR 990 (App. A). While Judge Benson’s Order did not state the reasons for the dismissal, at the hearing on this matter, Judge Benson expressed skepticism that the TCPA applied to communications made in judicial proceedings. RR 12-17. Ms. Fontanive timely filed this accelerated interlocutory appeal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.008(b).

[PROPOSED] Order signed by the Trial Court:  October 9, 2014:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-01391-CV&coa=coa05 

The federal case can be found:

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas:  CV-02237-P.  Marsha Fontanive and Lindsy Vitez v. Caris Life Science, et al.


Haynes & Boone LLP Won the GIVE EARLY RACE


BARON & BUDD, P.C. for the Appellant

Appellant’s Brief Here:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=9a572ecb-d5dd-4f6a-92be-327ab1d372bc&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=081f303c-f583-46fc-befa-7c07819a1133

Laura J. Baughman, Esq. Denyse F. Clancy, Esq. John Langdoc, Esq.

HAYNES & BOOONE LLP for the Appellee

Stacy L. Brainin, Esq. Jeremy D. Kernodle, Esq. Christopher Rogers, Esq. Nicole D. Somerville, Esq. Haynes and Boone, LLP

D'Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge - Have You Paid Your Dues?

D’Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge – Have You Paid Your Dues?

$5K Club Who Is a Member?


Haynes & Boone PAC together with individual Haynes & Boone Attorneys: $6,300

May 28, 2013: $5,000: David Taubenfeld: $200 June 6, 2013; George Bramblett $1,000 – June 6, 2013; Nina Cortell $100, June 6, 2013.

Baron & Budd together with individual Baron & Budd Attorneys:  $6,250

John L. Langdoc Esq.  $1000 donation September 23, 2014; Denyse Clancy:  $1,000  donation September 18, 2014

Two attorneys from Baron and Budd slide in under the wire to even up the donation game notwithstanding the fact that they appear to have an incredibly strong position!

Good news for D’Metria’s spending sprees and donation game!!!!  Will there be more gifts, more dining, more wine, more travel, more office decor!  How will she use the $2K raised very closely in time to the litigation of this case and most assuredly would NOT have been raised WITHOUT this case?

[PROPOSED] Order signed by the trial court October 9, 2014.  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-01391-CV&coa=coa05


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

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

Baron-Bud-D'Metria=Benson=Donation+2013 Baron-Budd=Oct20,2014

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

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

D'Metria Benson Love by ALL!

D’Metria Benson Love by ALL!

This situation very ably demonstrates the issues associated in highlighting attorney donors to D’Metria … in at least ten cases attorneys have noted their donations to D’Metria were in essence an act of, “doing what I felt I HAD to do for my client.” No attorneys in this case or firms in this case have made comments regarding their donations, though certainly others have.

Anyone care to wager who will be the FIRST to donate to the 2018 Campaign, Baron & Budd or Haynes and Boone?  These two firms have given and given and given.  If D’Metria Benson would  or should ever have been PREPARED for a hearing this should have been it.  Read the transcript.  Does this sound like a Judge who had prepared for this hearing?

Haynes & Boone was highlighted this past summer for their continued, early and unwavering support for D’Metria!

Each time a website critical of D’Metria was hacked, a new video was posted, as promised.  The hacking stopped.  The videos stopped.  This is one of the posted videos.

Who’s the REAL winner here?  D’Metria Benson, of course.  She picked up a couple of extra thousand dollars for extravagant indulgences!!!

Haynes & Boone and D'Metria Benson (again)

Haynes & Boone and D’Metria Benson (again)


Simply put, this is a rotten system.

What non-attorneys should understand is that Federal Judges are appointed, not elected.

Ms. Fontanive, on behalf of the United States Government, brought suit against her former employer, Caris (now known as “CDx” [CR 51 ]) under the “False Claims Act,” alleging that CDx knowingly presented false claims for payment to the United States. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (the “Whistleblower Act”). Ms. Fontanive alleged that CDx committed Medicare fraud by, inter alia, causing the government to pay for expensive medical tests, even though there was no evidence that these tests actually worked. CR 18-20.

As part of her participation in the Whistleblower lawsuit, Ms. Fontanive was required to turn over to the Justice Department all CDx documents that could provide evidence of this fraud. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (App. D). The United States District Court, the Honorable Jorge Solis presiding, denied CDx’s Motion to Dismiss the Whistleblower Claims.  United States of America ex rel. Marsha Fontanive and Lindsey Vitez v. Caris Life Sciences, Inc., et al., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188016 (N.D. Tex. 2013). Ms. Fontanive then produced to CDx the documents (the “Whistleblower Documents”) supporting the Whistleblower claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). CR 187-189.  

… But, as CDx’s counsel told the state county court at law [i.e. Haynes & Boone] the Honorable Judge D’Metria Benson presiding, CDx did not want its claims to be heard by the federal court presiding over this case, and thus pleaded that, no matter what, CDx would not ask for any amount over $71,000.00 (CR 293).

Court of Appeals Fifth Judicial District for the State of Texas, Cause Number : 05-14-01391-CV DALLAS MARSHA FONTANIVE, Appellant, vs. CDX HOLDINGS, INC. Appellee.   Appellant’s Amended Opening Brief, Statement of the Case, page viii: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=9a572ecb-d5dd-4f6a-92be-327ab1d372bc&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=081f303c-f583-46fc-befa-7c07819a1133

What is it about this case that so concerned Clancy and Langdoc to offer “contributions” so close in time to the hearing?  They clearly appear to have BOTH the moral and the legal high ground.

A review of cases in which they have historically been involved do NOT reflect “contributions” prior to hearing, to be a pattern of conduct on their behalf or more specifically, on behalf of their client.  This question is simply rhetorical – the answer is obvious and the purpose of this website.

The Cancer Letter Article on the Fontanive federal case:  “Wild West” of Molecular Testing?  Caris Engaged in Aggressive Marketing, Improper Medicare Billing, Lawsuit Alleges.  August 8, 2014   http://www.cancerletter.com/articles/20140808_2

No pretense is meant in quoting Shakespeare.  The indisputable reality here is that on more occasions than would be recountable, litigants and victims of D’Metria’s incompetence have NOT had recourse to the Appellate Court and have in fact, suffered Shakespearean tragedy.  One law firm proudly proclaims, “For whatever reason we do well in D’Metria Benson’s Court,” while concurrently noting, with equal pride, “We [name withheld] do NOT work for less than $300 an hour.”  Another law firm noted to a client, “Let’s just say, we have influence where influence counts.”  And yet another said, … this was so blatant a claim, that I dare not write it.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar—what should be in that “Caesar”?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together, yours is as fair a name.
Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well.
Julius Caesar.  Act I; Scene II

Two $5K Club Members Move to the Appellate

Haynes & Boone Fifth Court of Appeals Campaign Contributions

If these two large law firms want to duke it out in CCL One and the Court of Appeals over $71K – while there’s a fine venue in the existing case in Federal Court between the same parties, that’s fine, no one really cares.  Their attorney’s fees and client’s billings for the claim are their issues with their clients.   

The problem is their donations to D’Metria Benson help to keep her on the bench.  D’Metria’s incompetence is documented and generally accepted.  

It’s the small guys who come into D’Metria Benson’s Court with no hope of paying for an appeal and are trampled in the process who are the casualties of this system.



It’s called “Judicial Scrutiny.”  

“Friends” on the bench.

Cozy, cozy, cozy.  My how cozy.

… where issues are not exactly as one would want.  The lawfulness of these campaign contributions is unquestioned.  Haynes & Boone has operated within the bounds of campaign finance guidelines in making these contributions and the Justices have operated within the bounds of campaign finance guidelines in accepting the donations.

Haynes and Boone once again has the donor upper-hand as this case in which they claim no more than $71K will be demanded for breach of contract in CCL One.  A second request for extension of time to file response brief has been made to May 4, 2015, by the FOUR attorneys whose names appear on the petition and motion.  For a $71K claim, that’s a lot of billing hours!!!  Hmmm, they are most likely close to reaching the $71K mark in attorney’s fees, very, very soon — and all FOUR attorneys are just too busy to timely respond within the time frame of their first request for extension of time — and now require a second extension.  Maybe Haynes & Boone needs new recruits!


There’s a rodeo EVERY Friday and Saturday night at the Stock Yards in Fort Worth – head on over – you might find a paralegal there who fits your bill.  Yee haw.

Now, what exactly is the date Haynes & Boone will be doling out campaign contributions for the 2016 election time frame?  Mid-may 2015 or May 18, 2015 is the precise date contributions may be accepted (again) for those running in the 2016 election.  Challengers, if they win, may receive donations AFTER the 2016 election – and it is NOT likely they will raise funds from Haynes & Boone before an election.



Is it even possible to have this case heard by judges unimpeded with political contributions from either party?  The Justice will most likely write the opinion at a desk PURCHASED WITH THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE LAW FIRM WHOSE NAME IS on the appeal.  The very robe some wear as they hear the oral argument of attorneys was purchased with campaign donations from that attorney’s firm.  

And my, don’t they look dashing in those $500 Judicial Robes!!!  They earned it, well someone earned it, forwarded the purchase money as a campaign contribution and they’re wearing it now!  Thanks Haynes & Boone!

Booty and bounty from generous donors  pay for the office furnishings of a Justice, the clothing on the back of the Justice, the cell phone they use to take that call, the paint on their walls.  Campaign contributions will never influence a member of the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas, Texas!  Right?  

We could stick labels on their judicial robes, like race car drivers place on their fire retardant driving suits, but THAT would not be dignified, though it might be a bit more honest.  In theory the fire retardant fabric will provide SOME fire protection to the driver short of a catastrophic fire.  In a philosophic sense the judicial robe should protect the Justice from bias – or we are encouraged to believe so.  What irony.

If a justice has not had a re-election campaign such as a justice recently appointed that justice will be free of contamination, but even in those instances, is there not the ‘anticipation’ of donation?  There may be some missing donations based upon only a CURSORY review.  A more detailed review will be undertaken later.  Could these contributions/donations be one source of their arrogance?

The Haynes & Boone

Texas Fifth Court of Appeals $5K Club

Carolyn Wright 

Haynes and Boone PAC

  • 2011/11/15, $5000.00
  • 2009/7/01, $5000.00
  • 2003/11/14, 5000.00

Baron & Budd 2003 $5,000

Craig Stoddart

Haynes & Boone PAC  2014\09\29, $5000.00

 Lana Myers

Haynes & Boone PAC  2010\04\26, $5000.00

Cortell, Nina of Haynes & Boone,  2010\05\12, $100.00

Molly Francis 

Haynes & Boone  2011\11\17, $5000.00

David Bridges 

Haynes & Boone  2007\09\12, $5000.00

Haynes & Boone,  Attorney, Partner: Freytag, Sharon  2007\09\17, $250.00

Douglas Lang   

Baron & Budd, P.C. 2012\08\30, $1500.00

Haynes & Boone, lawyer, partner, Cortell,Nina  2012\09\20 $250.00

Haynes & Boone,lawyer, partner  Johnson, Anne  2012\08\23, $100.00

Haynes & Boone Political Action Committee 2011\07\22, $5000.00

Baron & Budd, P.C 2011\09\22, $1000.00

Friends of Haynes & Boone

David Lewis

Haynes Boone 2012\06\25, $2500.00

David Evans

Haynes Boone 11/10/ 14 $1000

Haynes Boone 11/5/12  Nina Cortell $250

Breaux,Ronald, 20061107,$150.00 Haynes and Boone LLP

Baron & Budd P.C. 2005\06\16, $2500.00

Baron & Budd P.C. ,2005\06\27,$ 2500.00

Bill Whitehill

Haynes and Boone Political Action Committee

  • 2013\11\26, $1500.00
  •  2011\11\15, $1000.00
Fifth Court of Appeals.  Dallas, Texas.

Fifth Court of Appeals. Dallas, Texas.


Are these donations one source of the arrogance displayed by Haynes & Boone in CCL One? It is nice to have ‘friends’ on the bench.

D’Metria Benson repeatedly solicited funds from attorneys with active litigation in her Court. There is NO indication this occurred in the Appellate Court and there is no indication that it did NOT.

To avoid the appearance of ‘friends’ on the bench the solution is simple.  Refuse all contributions which exceed $500.  Otherwise, this Court LOOKS tainted.

This is more than “unseemly.”  This is obscene.  In some instances Haynes & Boone clocks in as the largest single donor to a Justice.

Justice expenditures in some cases infer a self-indulgence at the expense of donors with office furniture, office couches, even the paint on the walls billed to donors or ‘campaign contributors.’  Is office decor a perk of having ‘friends’ on the bench.  In some instances, the answer is YES.  If Justices want the perks of private practice, perhaps they should consider private practice.    RETURN the money … if it is not needed for a campaign.  These self indulgences … place a Justice in the same category as D’Metria Benson, no better.  This case should be sent to another Court of Appeals for review.



This ain’t Haynes and Boone’s first rodeo.

Nor is it D’Metria Benson’s first.

Take a lesson from the Honorable King Fifer:  JUST SAY NO.


Or from the Honorable Mark Greenberg and make HONORABLE expenditures not self indulgent expenditures.

The Appellate Court can learn from other members of the judiciary.

The Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas, Texas … furnished by ______________ .





Haynes and Boone Black Hatted Rodeo Cow Boys  YEE HAW

It is fair and just that law students and law schools examine this system, D’Metria Benson, Haynes & Boone and the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas.

I will be glad to post the videos of your presentations.

But ask yourselves these questions:

1.   Would you take a job at Haynes & Boone … which reportedly underscores its campaign contribution program when recruiting.

2.  Would you take the campaign contribution?

Be honest with you answers – as you craft your argument.  This is ALL legal.

From my perspective firms like Haynes &  Boone who so freely give to judges on behalf of their clients, help to keep an incompetent Judge in power while the rest of society pays the price.  The arrogant remark, “Not our first rodeo,” made by a Haynes & Boone attorney in an egregious situation reflects the arrogance of the firm’s attorneys.  Review the case at bar in BOTH federal court and CCL One, Fontanive v. CDx .  

Examine who Haynes & Boone clients are … understand the dynamics that initially put D’Metria Benson in CCL One – the relationships – the current situation there.   This is a great deal to THIS story.

Balance the support Haynes & Boone provided D’Metria Benson with the real pain caused ordinary citizens who find themselves the victims of D’Metria’s incompetence.  Decide for yourself whether this incompetence is clustered with other issues.  Look at D’Metria Benson’s opponent and his campaign contributors – decide whether there was a fear of retaliation for financial support for her opponent and remember, donations could have been made to his campaign AFTER the election, IF HE HAD WON.

Then place yourself in the position of the Fifth Court of Appeals.  They cannot and will not send this to another Court of Appeals … for if they send this case, they would have to send all of Haynes & Boone’s cases to another Court of Appeals.  What is the consequence of sending all cases of major donors out?  Is it not an admission that the Court of Appeals can be tainted.  And there is some significant history here.

Would Baron & Budd dare ask the case be sent to another Court?  Never, that would insult the Court.  This is the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, the pretense that massive financial contributions have no impact upon justice.

Would Baron & Budd make contributions to the Court panel to hear the case, as they did to D’Metria Benson?  Never.  That would be much too obvious and certainly not expected.  A bit more finesse is required in the Court of Appeals!

The system is broken.  D’Metria Benson is Exhibit “A”  but the Court of Appeals is Exhibit “B.”

And Haynes and Boone?  Ready to exploit any and every crack in the system for the legal and lawful benefit of their client(s).  It’s good business!  It draws recruits – and breeds arrogance.  And the rest of society can just pay the ENORMOUS price.  So much pain created, really, by such a small amount of money in comparison to the enormous harm done.

This is satire.  No one really believes justice is for sale or rent.

This is satire. No one really believes justice is for sale or rent.

It is easy to be seduced by the law and by power.  Justice is a wholly different affair.  It would be difficult to find an attorney more inept and feckless than D’Metria Benson to sit on the bench in County Court at Law Number One of Dallas County, Texas.

To find Justices who would not take the easy money of campaign contributions would be much more difficult – and for the most part these Justices are competent as is their staff.  The rub comes in their self congratulatory estimation of their own ethical standards, but then it is expensive to buy and maintain a home, children in Dallas do benefit from private school, college is expensive, law school even more so, and it is just so damn easy to take the campaign contribution.  Once accepted, there it sits, in an account, unspent, and again, it is just so damn easy to purchase that $500 judicial robe, pay that cell phone bill, charge those supplies … just soooooooooo damn easy, and their counterparts in private practice, hell, first year associates at Haynes & Boone make more money than most of them, so why not?  It’s legal.

State Commission on Judicial Conduct – Paper Tiger

DWI – a deliberate act of the reckless endangerment of the lives of ANY innocent person, family, beloved individual who just happens to be on the road with the DRUNK driver.   DWI’s have plagued the judiciary.   This is so very, very wrong.  Not much of a problem really with the Commission of Judicial Conduct.  Expect an admonishment – not much more.  The is Commission is virtually worthless, their standards are so low, they might as well not exist.

Judicial Request to finance Honeymoon?  http://bigjollypolitics.com/judge-alicia-franklins-paris-rome-honeymoon/

Appellate court judge Nora Longoria (13th Court of Appeals) was admonished by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which found that using her position to try to avoid a DWI arrest in July “cast public discredit upon the judiciary.”  No mention of the endangerment of the lives of others on the road.  She was given the lowest level of discipline by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for her actions during a July 2014 arrest in McAllen.  Her discipline was for her drunken conduct in claiming her position during her arrest for DWI … and the DWI … dismissed.  http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1130964#.VRWCm_nF_C0  She failed the sobriety test, but refused a breathalyzer and blood test.  The claim is a magistrate should have been petitioned for a blood test and without that evidence, she would not be prosecuted.

The Wretched Case of Judge William Adams

The Texas Supreme Court  lifted the suspension of Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams.  Jude Adam’s daughter who suffered from cerebral palsy, uploaded to YouTube a video of the judge lashing his daughter with a belt SEVENTEEN times in a fit of rage.  The video showed the judge growing increasingly irate while she screams and refuses to turn over on a bed to be beaten. ‘Lay down or I’ll spank you in your (expletive) face,’ Adams screams as Hillary cries out in pain and horror while pleading for him to please stop.  Hmmm, how many times did this happen before the video?  What an awful man.

The Judge was suspended  with pay in November 2011 while the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated the 2004 incident. The commission issued a public warning to Adams on September 6. The Supreme Court approved an agreement between Adams and the commission asking that the suspension be lifted.  In the agreement Adams waived his right to appeal the public warning, which is essentially a public reprimand with no other consequences.

Adams’ former wife and Hillary’s mother, Hallie Adams, expressed disappointment in the decisions of the state commission and Supreme Court.  ‘Hillary and I are both really sad today,’ she said. ‘I had really hoped the judicial review process would work. I had really wanted to see the public protected.’

It was the voters that chose NOT to return the Judge to the bench, not the Supreme Court and not the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  This is the standard in Texas.

The idea that Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct would offer a solution is far stretched.  For years hidden details about dismissals in its annual report have been a point of contention.  The Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report has more information than has historically been provided.  There were 1,136 cases in fiscal year 2014 with 48 percent of cases focused on district judges and ten percent focused on . County court at-law and probate judges.  The commission issued disciplinary action in 61 cases, with 36 percent of the sanctions against district judges. The most common sanctions were: 15 private sanctions and orders of additional education; 12 private admonitions; and eight public reprimands.  That’s eight out of 1,136 cases.  Six jurists agreed to resign in lieu of discipline.

The commission dismissed 1,016 cases in the fiscal year. The report said that 794 cases were closed after an initial review or preliminary investigation. Another 188 cases were closed after full investigations. The commission also issued “letters of caution” in 32 cases after full investigations.

It’s easy enough to review the Carlos Cortez issues and Suzanne Wooten issues.   In Wooten’s case the Judge accepting the ‘bribe’  took a plea deal after her conviction by a jury that resulted in 10 years’ probation and resignation from the bench as well as a $10,000 fine and 1,000 hours of community service while the man who gave the bribe got 14 years in prison … makes you wonder, what’s the point here.  Wooten was convicted of six counts of bribery, along with one count each of money laundering, tampering with a government record and engaging in organized criminal activity.

The campaign manager was sentenced to 100 days in the Collin County jail, serve 10 years of probation and pay a $10,000 fine with 1,000 hours of community service and the wife that participated in the husband’s activity Cary’s wife, who elected to have a judge impose her sentence, got 30 days in jail and was ordered to serve 10 years’ probation and pay a $10,000 fine.

David Cary’s fourteen years in prison will provide time to reflect upon his conduct and how this issue could have been better handled.  The distinction between his conduct and those attorneys delivering campaign contributions tied closely in time to cases filed in D’Metria Benson’s court include the facts that these donations and contributions are LEGAL, perfectly LEGAL.  In the State of Texas D’Metria Benson can hold FIVE, TEN, FIFTEEN or a HUNDRED Campaign Fund Raisers soliciting funds from attorneys with active cases in her Court or the entire Bar if that is her decision.

D’Metria Benson’s donations/and contributions met the Texas Ethical Guidelines for a Judicial Candidate:

A.  The amount donated or contributed was consistent with campaign finance guidelines;

B.  Campaign Finance Guidelines window of time for providing contributions was respected;

C.  The donor is an ATTORNEY not the client though certainly clients can donate, though most attorneys advise against that course of conduct;

D. Quid pro quo was not a condition for the contribution or donation.

Caution here is in order.  Large law firms are able to deliver contributions early in a judge’s campaign to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Few firms and attorneys can afford this conduct.  It is for this reason any criticism of attorneys delivering campaign contributions close in time to cases filed in D’Metria Benson’s court should be restrained – and it is this reason this information obtained from public records obviously available to anyone has not been published.

UPDATE MARCH 26, 2015  Fifth Court of Appeals Acquitted David Cary on Bribery.  

Cause Number: 05-13-01010-CR


We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain appellant’s convictions for bribery, money laundering, and engaging in organized criminal activity. We reverse appellant’s convictions and render judgments of acquittal. As a result, we do not need to address appellant’s remaining arguments.

Page ten of the amicus brief examines the issue of campaign contributions as opposed to bribes which was not addressed by the Court.  However, the arguments are worthy of review.


c. The Funding in Question Constitutes Campaign Contributions, not Bribes

The record below thoroughly demonstrates that the funding here constituted political contributions designed to finance Suzanne Wooten’s campaign.

Under Texas law, political contributions may act as bribes only when the State meets a higher burden to show “an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion” and that this exercise “would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit.” TEX. PEN. CODE § 36.02(a)(4).

A campaign contribution is defined under Texas law as a contribution to a “candidate or political committee that is offered or given with the intent that it be used in connection with a campaign for elective office.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 251.001(3). Lastly, a contribution is a “direct or indirect transfer of money, goods, services, or any other thing of value and includes an agreement made or other obligation incurred, whether legally enforceable or not, to make a transfer.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 251.001(2).

The State, either misunderstanding or ignoring the Election Code, unconsciously agreed that the funding in question constitutes campaign contributions. After describing the funding scheme, the prosecutor explained that the “money is then used for the benefit of Suzanne Wooten. One hundred thousand dollars is spent on the campaign by March 4th.” 2 TR 52, 54. The State’s forensic 11 expert also agreed that the funding in question constitutes political contributions. This expert testified that the money was used “to benefit the campaign.” 8 TR 72. Thus, the record below illustrates that the funds in question were raised, exchanged, and spent “in connection with a campaign” to benefit Suzanne Wooten.

At this point, the only way a political contribution can be deemed a bribe under Texas law would be to produce evidence of an “express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion” and that this exercise “would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit.” TEX. PEN. CODE § 36.02(a)(4).

However plainly the law reads, the State wishes this Court to rewrite it, explaining that the statute’s plain language produces an “absurd result” by requiring this express agreement. State’s Br. at 71. But reading requirements out of the law is absurd, since in construing a statute Texas courts “give effect to all its words and, if possible, do not treat any statutory language as mere surplusage.” State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 287 (Tex. 2006).

Requiring a heightened burden of proof to show that political contributions are bribes is not an act of legislative surplusage. Rather, this burden ensures that prosecutors are not free to arbitrarily transform some contributions into bribes when it suits their taste. Perhaps prosecutors from Travis County do not care much for gun rights and wish to prosecute those who contribute to candidates who support concealed carry liberalization programs. Perhaps prosecutors from Denton County.  do not care much for same sex marriages and wish to prosecute those who contribute to candidates who support this cause. All that stands between prosecutorial abuse and important First Amendment rights is the rule of law. In this case, that means the government must meet its heightened burden to prove that the acts in question constituted bribery. Sidestepping this requirement only ensures that future acts of political association—recruiting candidates to run, giving keynote speeches at social functions, and all the ways people interact in a free society—are subject to the boundless, roving eye of political prosecutors in Texas.

Simply because prosecutors are not free to shoehorn any contribution they dislike into the offense of criminal bribery does not mean Texas is without redress. Indeed, the state enjoys remedies found in its Judicial Act and Code of Judicial Conduct to address the situation at hand. Because both of these involve areas of First Amendment concern balanced against the state’s anti-corruption interests, they are appropriately tailored. The Judicial Act provides for civil penalties up to three times the amount of the disputed political contribution.

The Code of Judicial Conduct authorizes the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate the behavior of suspicious judges and to act accordingly. TEX. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 6(G)(2). Where an express agreement is lacking under the bribery statute, prosecutors may employ the Judicial Act or refer complaints to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. But prosecutors may not rewrite the bribery 13 statute to remove legislatively and constitutionally required safeguards. Contrary  to the State’s assertions, this is not an absurd result. Rather, it reflects the wisdom of the Texas Legislature in applying its bribery statute in limited instances while preserving breathing space for protected forms of political speech and association.


At the close of David Cary’s trial, the jury was instructed to determine his guilt of engaging in organized criminal activity, or “committing or conspiring to commit” bribery, money laundering, and/or tampering with a governmental record. CR 633–58. The jury was also tasked with examining six individual counts of bribery and one of money laundering. The instructions implement vague and overbroad applications of the bribery and money laundering statutes, which, if allowed to stand, threaten the First Amendment rights of political contributors across Texas. The State’s charge to the jury amounts to a hedged bet, unconstitutionally expanding a criminal law to eclipse the Election Code and threaten the political process.1

a. The Texas Election Code and Judicial Act Governed Cary’s Actions

Before discussing the charges in this case, it is important to discuss the State’s radical departure from the Election Code and Judicial Act. The Election Code—and Judicial Act contained within it—exist to govern state political races and prevent corruption or its appearance. Like any law that places restrictions on political engagement, it is not without its problems, because it inevitably punishes and threatens to punish people for improper engagement, which is often free speech or association. Nevertheless, the Code is the main governor of “all general, special, and primary elections held in this state” and “supersedes a conflicting statute outside this code unless this code or the outside code expressly provides otherwise.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.002.

The bribery statute expressly provides for a narrow instance when political contributions under the Code may be considered bribes, but the State did not follow that limitation. The sidelining of the Election Code in this case is especially important because the Code does not significantly criminalize campaign finance blunders and violations. Even knowing contribution violations can only lead to Class A misdemeanor charges unless the contributions arise from corporations or labor organizations. See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 253.003. In the case of judicial elections under the Judicial Act (the present case), contribution violations are subject only to civil penalty. TEX. ELEC. CODE §§ 253.003(c), 253.155(f).

Although the inchoate offense of conspiracy applies to the Election Code, this is only for its few felony offenses. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.018; see TEX. PEN. CODE § 15.02(a) (requiring intent to commit a felony). Certainly, several charges under the Judicial Act and civil lawsuits could have been brought against the Carys, Steve Spencer and Suzanne Wooten, respectively, with no First Amendment problems. But they were not. Instead, the State asks this Court to uphold charges against the first-time candidacy of Wooten, first-time campaign by Spencer, and—specifically in this case—the first illegal contributions by Stacy Cary as organized crime.2


Bribery is a serious crime, but free speech and association are more serious liberties. See Benjamin Franklin, On Freedom of Speech and the Press, PENN. GAZETTE, Nov. 1737, reprinted in MEMOIRS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Vol. 2, at 431 (“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins”).

The bribery statute clearly articulates where political contributions end and where bribery begins. The State presented a compelling narrative at trial that certainly leaves many actors in this case with unclean hands—indeed, likely guilty of numerous Election Code violations. But even the dirty politicking seen here, even illegal political contributions, may not be used to arbitrarily circumvent the bribery law’s requirements and turn political campaigning in Texas into organized crime.


High Courts and Judicial Conduct

The Austin American-Statesman did a good job of evaluating the Commission on Judicial Conduct:

Most judicial sanctions, however, are kept confidential. Of the 190 sanctions the commission has issued in the past four years, nearly two-thirds remain under wraps. Last year, it issued seven public sanctions – and 27 private reprimands.

Judges also may resign rather than face disciplinary action; 18 have done so since 2008. Although the commission releases their names, details of their cases remain private.

An American-Statesman review of a decade’s worth of publicly available disciplinary records – several hundred case summaries – suggests that in some instances there is at least the appearance of uneven sanctions – cases in which judges found to have committed relatively minor infractions were punished more severely than those who committed more serious violations – or differing punishments for similar violations.    

WHO’S POLICING TEXAS JUDGES?  Eric Dexheimer edexheimer@statesman.com Austin American-Statesman 15 April 2012

Generally, there are very, very few issues in Texas Higher Courts that receive admonishment.  Hecht’s issues were more political than ethical.

William Kilgarlin, a former Texas Supreme Court justice served from 1982 until 1988.  Kilgarlin received a public admonishment in June 1987 for soliciting donations from attorneys, including some who had cases pending before the high court, to finance a suit he filed against the Judicial Affairs Committee of the Texas House of Representatives and a former briefing attorney who testified against Kilgarlin in a 1986 House committee hearing. Kilgarlin lost re-election to Nathan Hecht in 1988. 

Hecht was reprimanded for lobbying to confirm the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. That reprimand was removed.  Hecht solicited contributions to pay the legal fees incurred in battling the complaint .  Hecht was fined $29,000 by the Texas Ethics Commission in 2008, declaring the discount extended to him on legal fees was an improper campaign contribution.

In the Fifth Court of Appeals  Joe Devany was admonished.

JosephADevany-Fraud (25000 of 1)The State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Justice Joe Devany at age 74 changed his birth date in order to receive retirement benefits.  Devany started changing official records in December 1994 to show his birthday as June 23, 1924. That would have made him 71.  Devany changed his voter registration and county and state records to show the false birth date and found to be part of a plan to delay mandatory retirement and accrue additional service credit toward retirement benefits.  Devany’s position was that it never happened.  His acceptance of contributions from attorneys involved in cases before him was very effective.

This is reality; this is life;  citizens suffer.  The difference between this and other governmental disasters is the galling self-effacement of a glaring problem where the majority of stake-holders, those who can afford a civil appeal are those financing the Justices.  We are left to trust their ethical standards, which does not always work.


Winged Pegasus, the symbol of Magnolia Oil, which became Mobile Oil and ultimately Exxon Mobile sits as the center piece of the Old Red Court House.  Exxon Mobile’s headquarters are located in Dallas – and the much beloved classic 1950’s architecture of the Magnolia Rest Station at Fair Park is an important building.

Dallas does not always see itself as does the rest of the world – and still suffers from the image of Dealy Plaza and the Sixth Floor Book Depository. This is a complicated city – do not judge it too harshly. I look forward to your arguments.



One November day I stood at a western window in the Old Red Court House, when it was still a Court House in a Judge’s office.  A spot below the ‘grassy knoll’ and west of Dealy Plaza was pointed out to me and the Judge explained to me a black man had been lynched by an angry mob on that spot.  There is no monument to that despicable course of conduct though certainly the monument to George Dealy stands to this day.  This is Dallas, there have always been egregious acts.  There most likely will always be.

If you find a D’Metria Benson admirer – send a message.  They seem to be more rare than dinosauers.  Most judges have a list of attorneys and firms who endorse them.  I have never seen this for D’Metria Benson, only a list of donors.


Money, That’s What I Want!

D’Metria Benson Held a

FIFTH Campaign Fundraiser

March 2, 2015


Donations Accepted in



D’Metria Benson MONEY

D'Metria Benson Fifth Fund Raiser March 2015

Invitations and request for donations sent in advance of Fund Raiser.

It is literally painful to ponder the audacity of a Judge who continuously solicits funds from attorneys practicing actively in her Court and cannot be bothered to comply with the details of Campaign Finance Laws or to audit and ATTEMPT to balance her own Financial Filing Statements.


D’Metria Benson 2014 Campaign Filings Statement of Cash*
January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014
December 31, 2012 Stated Funds on Hand* $2,616.84
1/1/13 – 12/31/14 Stated Funds Raised $188,883.69
Calculated Total Funds $191,500.53
1/1/13 – 12/31/14 Stated Expenses Make your own CalculationSee Below
December 31, 2014 Calculated Net Cash** $
Make your own calculation
December 31, 2014 Stated Funds on Hand* $28,803.01
     Dallas County, Texas, Campaign Finance Filings:  http://www.dallascounty.org/campaign_finance.php

Campaign Finance Reports Totals taken from sworn filings with the Dallas County Clerk.

Totals reported on sworn Campaign Finance filings not audited for accuracy but taken as reported in Line 17 items.


* Line 17 References “Total Political Contributions.”  This analysis is based solely on Line 17 “Political Contributions” and “Campaign Expenses” as reported by D’Metria Benson.  There is NO attempt to include traditional Cash on Hand items such as interest income NOR should there be.  That is not a part of the Campaign Finance Filing requirements.  This reference is solely to the Campaign Finance Filings of D’Metria Benson filed with Dallas County, Texas.


For reports due on or after September 28, 2011, a candidate or officeholder is required to disclose information regarding the following types of activity from political contributions:

any credit, interest, rebate, refund, reimbursement, or return of a deposit fee resulting from the use of a political contribution or an asset purchased with a political contribution, the amount of which exceeds $100;

    • any proceeds of the sale of an asset purchased with a political contribution, the amount of which exceeds $100;

    • any other gain from a political contribution, the amount of which exceeds $100; and

    • any investment purchased with a political contribution, the amount of which exceeds $100.

A candidate or officeholder must use Schedule K to report such information. Although you are not required to do so, you may also report any credit/gain/refund, interest, or investment that does not exceed $100 in the period on this schedule. (Previously, this was an optional schedule because a candidate or officeholder was not required to report this information.) A candidate or officeholder may not use interest and other income from political contributions for personal purposes. Political expenditures made from such income must be reported on the expenditures schedule.

**Net Cash is calculated based upon Sworn Financial Statement Totals filed with Dallas County Clerk.  Clearly, there is most likely a very simple explanation for this.  Most likely there is simply a failure to record expenses or an over statement or duplicate listing of contributions.  Link Here for the details:  http://www.dmetriabenson.org/dmetria-benson-campaign-finance-report-totals/  

Stated Political Contributions On Hand – Stated Political Contributions Raised – Stated Expenses

See Page in Drop Down Menu for Screen shots of Line Items 17, Sub-items 1 through 6 from Campaign Finance Filing Forms and Detailed Analysis which support the Stated Political Contributions on Hand, Stated Political Contributions Raised and Stated Expenses.

February 17, 2014 Note:  Included below are screen shots placed within this post and found on the separate page of the Line Items 17, sub-items 1 through 6, the Statement of Political Contributions on Hand for December 31, 2012 and the two PayPal Amendments.

Stated Political Contributions on Hand, Stated Expenses and Political Contributions Raised taken from sworn filings on file with Dallas County.  Line number 17 sub-items one through six are as follows:

 1.  Political Contributions on Hand December 31, 2013:  $2616.84



2.  January 1 2013, to June 30, 2013



3.  July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013


July2013toDecember 2013

4.  January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014



5.  July 1,2014 to September 29, 2014



6.  September 26, 2014 to October 25, 2014



This Campaign Finance Report indicates TEN donations were accepted on the SAME day, October 20, 2014, and ONE donation was accepted on October 22, 2014.  No other reports indicate donations accepted on these stated dates.

7.  October 26 to December 31, 2o14



8.  Amended Expenses



9.  Cross-over in Reporting Dates:  September 26 to September 29, 2014:

9-26-10-25-14 7-1-14=9-29-14


During these crossover reporting periods the same expense does appear to have been recorded twice, a payment to PayPal.

JultoSep2014 SeptoOctober2014PayPal


Some stated expenses do not have dates.  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm


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.


For reporting purposes, an expenditure is made when the amount of the expenditure is readily determinable, not when payment is actually made. If a filer cannot determine the amount of an expenditure until a periodic bill, the date of the expenditure is the date the bill is received.  THE DATE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE INCLUDED.

faith Marriott


A full audit of donor duplication and expense duplications has NOT been made.  The numbers presented in this posting were taken at face value and directly from  Line 17 items as sworn on the campaign finance filings of D’Metria Benson.

Texas State Ethic Commission: http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm

The candidate, not the campaign treasurer, is responsible for filing reports. 

Line 17 Sworn Campaign Finance Filings   Political Contributions Political Expenditures Contributions Maintained
12/31/2012 Stated Maintained Contributions $2,616.84
Jan 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013 Political Contributions $66,020.00
Political Expenditures under $100 $204.77
Political Expenditures over $100 $6,360.64
Stated Maintained Contributions $62,225.62
July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013  Political Contributions $45,488.69
Political Expenditures under $100 $642.85
Political Expenditures over $100 $23,642.42
Stated Maintained Contributions $80,156.19
January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 Campaign Contributions $24,925.00
Political Expenditures under $100 $1,238.90
 Political Expenditures over $100 $15,408.89
Stated Maintained Contributions $83,373.40
July 1, 2014 to September 29 2014 Campaign Contributions $100.00
Campaign Contributions $43,250.00
Political Expenditures under $100 $780.88
Political Expenditures over $100 $38,902.20
Stated Maintained Contributions $68,379.76
September 26, 2014 to October 25, 2014 Campaign Contributions $8,250.00
Political Expenditures under $100 $244.00
Political Expenditures over $100 $52,371.56
Stated Maintained Contributions $46,496.93
October 26, 2014 to December 31, 2014 Campaign Contributions $850.00
Political Expenditures under $100 $520.40
Political Expenditures over $100 $13,971.50
Stated Maintained ContributionsDecember 31, 2014 Stated Maintained Contributions $28,803.01
Amended PayPal Expense for 2013 Amended Expenditures $7.55
Amended Expenditures $422.33
Total $188,883.69 $154,718.89
Maintained Contributions as of December 31, 2012 $2,616.84
 Total Contributions December 31, 2014 Plus Maintained  MAKE YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS
? Total Funds on Hand Less Total Expenses MAKE YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS

See Dallas Campaign Finance Reports: http://dallascounty.org/campaign_finance.php

Dallas Campaign Finance Reports D'Metria Benson

D'Metria Benson Dallas Campaign Finance Reports


What utter arrogance to have all these forms notarized by Dallas County Employees working the the Courts Building.

 2018 Fund Raising Expected to Begin

May 13, 2017

How Many Fund Raisers Next Campaign?

D'Metria Benson Fund Raiser March 2015

D’Metria Benson FIFTH Fund Raiser March 2, 2015


John Oliver on Elected Judges

“Judges asking lawyers to give them

campaign money

is the definition of a conflict of interest.”

“Sometimes Judges will even shake lawyers down after the election is over.”

“Faith in a strong judiciary is essential for a civilized society.”

“If we are going to keep elected judges, we may have to alter our idea of what justice is.”

And in D’Metria’s case often our idea of what the law is must be altered as well!

“Think about it, giving money to judges wouldn’t be fair in a State Fair Squash Growing competition.

Oh, really Gladys gets first place?  How much money did she give you?  Because I know that …. squash is not the nicest … it looks like *()#%@Q …. and everyone here KNOWS IT!

D'Metria Benson Modified Scales of Justice

Modified Scales of Justice

Mandamus History of D’Metria Benson County Court at Law Number One

Texas Mandamus Queen

D'Metria Benson Queen of the Texas Mandamus

Mandamus and Appellate History of

D’Metria Benson Prior to 2012

A review of the Mandamus history of D’Metria Benson prior to 2012 in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals located in Dallas, Texas, can be found at Court Stuff:


See CourtStuff for the 115 cases filed prior to 2012.

Mandamus and Appellate History of D’Metria Benson After 2012  

(The Illustrated Version)

(work in progress will be expanded and updated)


D’Metria Benson, a county court judge, re-writes decades of legal precedent!  (Again.)  

Perhaps D’Metria Benson is better suited for the Supreme Court than County Court!  Have her donors and supporters considered that?  

A D’Metria Benson Campaign for the Supreme Court of the State of Texas!

D'Metria Benson TExas State Supreme Court

Benedict Olusola, M.D. Nteesha S. Smith 

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

This seems straight forward?   More like the Twilight Zone, than Alice in Wonderland.


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 2/25/15

Case Ready to Be Set

How much did this act of incompetence cost the client?

How much emotional harm did this inequity cause BOTH the Plaintiff and the Defendant?

What Is Wrong with D’Metria Benson?

How Does this Keep Happening?

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.

A first year law student could do better than this.  

Can anyone explain D’Metria?

Did she really believe these very competent attorneys would NOT appeal?

Is there even a remote possibility the Fifth Court of Appeals will support the complete recreation and redrafting of the Medical Liability Act by a County Court Judge?

Did she really believe she was accurately applying law to fact?

This conduct is incomprehensible, not to mention expensive to the client.

Dallas Committee for Qualified Judiciary
Certifies D’Metria Benson as Qualified

Do NOT forget D’Metria Benson has been certified as qualified by the Dallas Committee for a Qualified Judiciary.  Shows what that’s worth.

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 by the Dallas Committee for a Qualified Judiciary. That must be a meaningful designation and organization.

Open Locks Whoever Knocks

Something Wicked This Way Comes

This must be a very unfunny joke. Link here for Committee for a “QUALIFIED” Judiciary:   http://www.cqjdallas.org/

Any Judge who has more than three Mandamuses granted per year might have closer scrutiny than what ever the standards were that let D’Metria Benson slip through the certification process of the Committee for a “Qualified” Judiciary.

This Committee reminds me of Macbeth, Act Four, Scene One.  The Witches Chant.  This scene scared me silly as a child sitting in a darkened theater.  D’Metria is even scarier and always reminds me of these witches.

First Witch
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew’d.

Second Witch
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.

Third Witch
Harpier cries “‘Tis time, ’tis time.”

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison’d entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot.

Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches’ mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver’d in the moon’s eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
[Enter Hecate, to the other three Witches]

O well done! I commend your pains;
And every one shall share i’ the gains;
And now about the cauldron sing,
Live elves and fairies in a ring,
Enchanting all that you put in.
[Music and a song: ‘Black spirits,’ etc, Hecate retires]

Second Witch
By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks!


I would respectfully suggest that ANY COMMITTEE that certifies D’Metria Benson as QUALIFIED to sit as a judge on any bench has some issues of competency and qualifications themselves.  The responsible course of action would be to have an outside committee evaluate their criteria and standards to determine why and how they have lapsed.


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

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.  After almost eight years on the bench, her rankings and conduct appear to be declining rather than improving.

The D’Metria Benson Deposition of June 13, 2013, the summary and the deposition have been briefly posted (again).

I have been asked multiple times to repost the deposition, its summary and the links again.

My problem with this is the innocent people D’Metria drug into her conduct in Henderson County.  However, that issue must be weighed against the insight into D’Metria’s character and respect for the law that the deposition provides.

So many have been harmed by D’Metria; not everyone can go to the Appellate three times on Mandamus as did William Wolf.

I simply do not want to contribute to harming more people because of D’Metria by posting the deposition summary.  It is unfathomable this woman is a judge.  In the last fifteen months, since the website began countless stories of incompetence coupled with devastating consequence have been shared.

The deposition reflects a woman, a judge, who played fast and lose with the truth.  The facts are exposed, the evidence is there.  It remains to another to take action.

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:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=1862ec1b-463a-41c6-ae83-41929f5320cf&coa=coa05&DT=Order&MediaID=cad5f583-b3f7-472f-8fe7-fa33eff6831d

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:  http://www.courtstuff.com/EDOCS/10/1/10134916.PDF


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:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=cc4d4cb8-6384-4ec8-a51e-5b8bed77966b&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=11c37052-df00-4b29-ab2c-186de5e01b52


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.


Willard Ragland v. BNSF Railway Company – SHAM AFFIDAVIT ISSUE

EVIDENTIARY ISSUE:  Court abused its discretion by sustaining Appellee’s objection to Appellant’s affidavit as a sham affidavit.  Link Here.

What makes this case so interesting is that it addresses the precise issue of the Benson personal case in the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals, a SHAM AFFIDAVIT.

12th Court of Appeals Docket:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=12-13-00287-CV&coa=coa12

Appellant’s Brief Addressing the issue of sham affidavit:  Link Here

12th Court of Appeals Sham Affidavit Ruling:  Link Here


D’Metria’s Little Sham Problem



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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=01-13-00567-CV&coa=coa01#sthash.5LLy6d3t.dpuf


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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-11-01619-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.QI0tjJNl.dpuf

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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-13-00149-CV&coa=coa03#sthash.1epKpVdE.dpuf


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





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.

Supreme Court Status

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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=dfb60635-7591-4314-b066-eeef35a719ae&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=81ecd219-455d-4bcc-a6b1-ceda49519df8

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

– See more at: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=14-0706&coa=cossup#sthash.cEbJXe6H.dpuf

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

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
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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=14-0706&coa=cossup#sthash.y681U1fn.dpuf

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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00539-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.Jlbgzk82.dpuf


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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-12-01577-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.QFV1wc2L.dpuf
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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-12-01577-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.waLCu8mx.dpuf

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:
$5000 in 2010 Campaign and for the 2014 Campaign:
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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00131-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.Jd1yYViA.dpuf

Party PartyType Representative
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Appellant Gordon M. Shapiro
Jeffrey G. Hamilton
William D. Ellerman
Brad NitschkeJackson 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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-00131-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.u2yJptZc.dpuf

Jackson Walker LLP D’Metria Benson Campaign Contributions:

Previous donations in prior election years.


Law Offices of Van Shaw and Attorney Associate Collen Myer, D’Metria Benson Campaign Contributions:

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

Previous Years Contributions as Well

Weinstein & Riley, P.S.  v.  Larry Blankenship, et al. 
Cause Number:  05-14-00902-CV  Date Filed: 07/10/2014 

Carl Tillery Donation to D’Metria:  $1,000 on August 9, 2013.  Tillery is the Appellee.  His brief is here.

Carl Tillery Donation D'Metria Benson Campaign

Carl Tillery Donation D’Metria Benson Campaign

Party PartyType Representative
Weinstein & Riley, P.S. Appellant Kelly Gill
Larry Blankenship, et al. Appellee Carl D. Tillery

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS and Recording Occupation

A judicial candidate or officeholder must report all political contributions, including contributions of money as well as in-kind contributions. Contributions from one donor that in the aggregate exceed $50 in a reporting period must be itemized on a report. In addition to the date and amount of the contribution, the report must include the name and address of the individual or political committee making the contribution. If the contributor is an individual, the report must also list the individual’s principal occupation and affiliation with any law firm (even if the affiliation is through a spouse or through a parent of a child).  (even if the affiliation is through a spouse or through a parent of a child).

http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm  SEE:  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm

Appellant’s Reply Brief eloquently and succinctly put:


But the real problem here is that Plaintiffs even had to file this appeal.  Well, other than the problem with the Carl Tillery donation and the failure to note his occupation on the Campaign Finance Report by D’Metria Benson.

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: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-13-00401-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.nF9PiwJX.dpuf


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


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:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=c41c401f-e413-4d08-bb46-ee60ddb67a5e&coa=coa05&DT=Opinion&MediaID=e58db1a2-0917-4de7-96d7-6aee436147d1

 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:  $11,000

Mandamus Issued
August 28, 2014

Third Donation to D’Metria:  September 24, 2014


NOTE:  As you can see D’Metria Benson did not bother to enter law firm names with attorney names in her Campaign Finance Report in most cases.   There are other posts on this issue on this website.  If law firms are missed it is simply because their identity was not known.  A genuine effort has been made to identify all donating attorneys and firms with cases appealed or when a mandamus has been sought.




BCH Development, LLC and Blanchard Homes, LLC v.: Lakeview Heights Addition Property Owners’ Association and Barbara Wohlrabe

Case: 05-14-00003-CV
Date Filed: 01/02/2014
Case Type: Injunction

Big Trial Coming Up?

Invite the media.  Blog daily.  A LOT of people have a strong interest in cleaning up this ungodly mess known as CCL One.

If you find yourself in D’Metria Benson’s Court feeling a little like Alice in Wonderland – hopefully this website will help in understanding the dynamics at work.   Fifteen months of hearing the vast number of stories associated with the practice of law in CCL One under D’Metria Benson, and the impact upon the clients and attorneys has left a clear pattern of conduct.

Why has this occurred?  – beyond the stated facts everyone has an opinion as to WHY?  Clearly, lack of competence is the core issue but this problem is clustered with other issues.  Read the facts, come to your own conclusion – and always, always, anyone with a differing opinion is welcomed to present a guest post OR to send criticism.  All criticisms are seriously evaluated and have historically resulted in modifications to this website.

This is information attorneys need:  JURORS COME TO THIS SITE.

If you have a jury trial and have decided to associate a D’Metria Club Member – that could ultimately backfire!  But for the law firm that markets themselves as, for whatever reason we do well in D’Metria Benson’s Court et al perhaps they could be associated for pretrial matters!  That won’t help with Mandamus or Appeal but at least one law firm believes and suggests it will help in CCL One.

D’Metria Benson Nightmare Before Christmas

D'Metria Benson and Lorraine Raggio travel to Henderson County, Texas.  Nightmare before Christmas.

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house,
Lawyers complain of D’Metria, a known louse.

She uses her color as a sword and a shield,
She’s the argument for judicial reform that lawyer’s wield.

Multiple candidates of color in Dallas abound,
In the CCL Primary they simply could not be found.
Some say she is bad side of affirmative action,
But be prepared for the racist claimant faction.

She ran as the only Democrat,
Republican opposition fell thuddingly flat.
Straight ticket party voting, voted her in.
Four fund raisers propelled her on to a win.

Battle Ground Texas’ claims were left in tatters,
They can claim this one win – a lasting disgrace that matters.
Political advisor claims of candidates with integrity and the temperament to Judge,
Can now be amended with this permanent smudge.*

The summer passed with a shocking internet display,
Someone dared to caricature D’Metria in an offensive way!
The Supremes had ruled the Benson affidavit a sham,
We were supposed to ignore this? “Oh, Yes Ma’am.”

Heated phone calls were made, complaints were lodged,
Candidates were outraged, and blame was dodged!
Oh, this must be racial in motivation,
Was D’Metria’s specious and rehearsed narration.

The Fourth of July passed with candidates on vacations!
D’Metria’s was paid for with attorney donations.
Websites in offense to D’Metria were repeatedly hacked,
Criticism MUST BE SILENCED or attacked.

This ridicule must stop, it’s unsightly – unseemly,
Our law firm is portrayed much too extremely,
We know she’s a judicial disgrace and a shame,
But we are entitled to play the donation game.

Law firms with specialties of campaign finance law,
Were retained for D’Metria to give her a call,
When websites changed, or matters grew worse,
During business hours they often conversed.

They should have cautioned on campaign finance filings,
But internet sleuthing was much more beguiling!

Some law firms gave early, some attorneys gave often,
In hopes wacky rulings they would be able to soften.
Perhaps she would be more prone to at least timely rule,
And Mandamus would not be an indispensable tool.

None dug deeper in to D’Metria’s personal conduct,
No one looked further in her Henderson County attempts to obstruct,
Obstruct integrity, ethics and pervert the law,
“I have no recollection,” was her sworn flaw.

If matters get tight for your client with that which is true,
In CCL 1, “I have no recollection,” should work for you!

If you find yourself in D’Metria’s County Court,
“Possession is nine-tenths of the law,” was her legal retort.
Try that theory on her or her Plea to Jurisdiction,
The Motion to Transfer Venue she used might receive benediction.

Did she copy those filings from a case in her Court?
Were those motions she denied – for which she NOW sought support?

Fellow Judge Lorraine Raggio stepped up to the plate,
D’Metria’s a RIGHTEOUS WOMAN she proclaimed, a bit late.
Two judges are better than one, they believed,
In Henderson County the Judicial Team was not well received.

With four demands for attorney contributions,
D’Metria raised almost $200K for retribution.
Her coffers were full she continued to spend!
To Santa Fe, to Lost Pines to air fare no end.

She purchased expensive gifts and office décor,
She continued to ask for more and more!
Luncheon at Neimans and thousands for wine,
Fund raising expenses, and lovely places to dine!

Her campaign reports were faulty and incomplete,
Campaign finance compliance she did not meet.
A mere triviality, there was money to raise,
Attorneys to fleece for financial praise!

There was the pesky William Wolf’s Third Mandamae to dodge,
Judicial Polls were unfair was the complaint she would lodge.

Fellow judges complain mostly in quiet halls,
In secret murmurings and untracable squalls.

D’Metria won and she’s flying high!
Once again attorneys can turn a blind eye.

On Vinson & Elkins; On Haynes and Boone;
They hope that D’Metria will be dancin’ their tune!

On Baron & Budd and Mr. Van Shaw.
They know the judge – AND they know the law!
Well, except for those Mandamae and those silly Appeals,
Where the Fifth reversed and rendered, “Uhm, no deal.”

On Domingo Garcia and Melodeee Armstrong,
To D’Metria’s Super Donor Club they truly belong!

On Miller & Weisbrod and mediators GALORE!
With D’Metria they hope for an excellent rapport!

Then there’s Ben Abbott, a good friend, indeed!
You never know when you might have a need.
Frank Branson’s a guy who always comes through,
Does he have so much money he does not know what to do?

But they’ve got her deference, they’ve walked through the door,
They can avoid her creepy demeanor, most just abhor.

Those whose unpaid D’Metria dues have accrued,
You must take your chances and possibly be screwed,
D’Metria’s bias, her ignorance, her incompetence,
Her perversion of the law will make you wince.

Remember her most favored can be associated for a rate,
They claim her incompetence and wrath may abate.

“For whatever reason we do well in D’Metria’s Court,”
Associate us and she may not sell you short!
Cottage industry law firms, curry her favor,
They claim return on investment that does not waiver.

So if you find yourself on the end of unconstitutional rulings,
And you find her spiteful, vengeful, bias grueling,
Find a D’Metria Club member to carry your case,
At least your client will not end in disgrace.

But watch for the Appellate, they have her number,
Your trial court win, they may ultimately encumber,
With a TAKE NOTHING ruling and attorney’s fees,
You will have taken a hard fall from the D’Metria trapeze.


The Illustrated Children’s Cautionary Tale:  D’Metria, the Vedy Vedy Bad Judge will be presented at story teller conferences nationwide!

Copies will be available here.

Integrity Experience and the Temperment to JUDGE?  Laughable Claim.

*Democracy Toolbox claims they promote candidates who have “integrity, experience and the proper temperament to be a Judge.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. In this issue no one has budged.

Job number one should have been getting the Campaign Finance reports filed by D’Metria in compliance. This never happened.  Read more here and here.  This is not hard, not exactly rocket science.

Campaign Finance Laws are very clear,
The candidate must include the date of the expense in the spot marked “HERE.”



Expensive Webite:  http://dmetriabenson  DOT Com

$7500 for a digital campaign?

This website came in under $100 INCLUDING VIDEOS!!!


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!



But hey, there was that additional money to be made!
Management fees could be added, and voters swayed!

Expenses could be obscured with these vague management fees,
Extra funds can be obtained,  when you represent a sleaze!

Rulings could be downplayed or made obscure,
Management services would help to detour,

Detour the obvious, known D’Metria reputation,
Gloss that over with the fact she had the nomination.

Yes, indeedy, straight ticket party voting gave us D’Metria,
They got their money, in TWO  years they will again see ya!

How many fund raisers will we have then?
Will we go from four to eight, maybe ten?

For now, everyone else is left to deal with the sloth,
The Nightmare of D’Metria and the pain she has wrought.


Four Fund Raisers Helped Pay this Bill! Only a small fraction of the $187K Plus Raised!

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.

Democracy Toolbox - Where they the author of the FOUR FUNDRAISER Strategy?  The one that held up attorneys and mediators again, and again, and again, and again?


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.



Glossary for D’Metria

There are some ‘hard’ words and complex concepts in this poem.  A Glossary has been provided for D’Metria.

1. Showy
2. Having a deceptive attraction or allure
3. Having a false look of truth or genuineness such as “Specious Reasoning.

1. To make use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage

1. The state of being the case : fact
2. The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
3. The body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
4. The judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true

1. To block or close up by an obstacle
2. To hinder from passage, action, or operation : impede
3. To cut off from sight


1. To find fault
2. To hold responsible
3. To place responsibility on another

1. A drawing that makes someone look funny or foolish because some part of the person’s appearance is exaggerated
2. Someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way

1. Writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty