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.”
Democracy-Toolbox-No-Date-Dmetria_Benson

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 four 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.

DemocracyToolBox

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.

http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/forms/JCOH_ins.htm#SCHEDULE_F

Glossary for D’Metria

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

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

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

Truth
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

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

Blame

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

Caricature
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

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

D’Metria Benson’s Next Fund Raising Expected to Begin

Write What You Know … and so she did

Shrouded by the Past

Pretense and affection shrouded the cluttered first floor law office from tread the worn carpets to the aging designer wall color.  Trivial objects in coordinated colors laid the foundation for the attorney, a man of equal trivialities.  It was hard to know if he was a has been or a never was, the affectation was strong.  Still it was clear, he was a Jerry Spence wanna be.  Too much arrogance, no preparation and years of hiding made the commonality of the situation painfully clear, “all form and no substance.”  What bound this little caderie together, the rippling ebbing undercurrents, the convoluted familiarity, the insider communications left a bread crumb trail as impossible to hide as their double lives, still struggling in the shadows, strangled by choices and commitments made in a time long past.

_____________________

“This has got calamity written all over it.”  The unbroken reality of years of representation, first the father, now the son.

“Yeah, well, it’s got millions in attorney’s fees, signed, sealed and delivered as far as the eye can see.”

Jim looked out from the 70th floor of the Dallas Bank of America Tower past Fort Worth, “I can see far enough.” He watched the Boeing 767’s line up over DFW from the crest of his lofty summit, close to a thousand feet above Main Street.  He had come to terms with his client’s realities before and in accepting their undeterred business practices become one with them forever gleaning and scheming, pitching forward, rushing back as circumstances demanded.  Always guarding the gate, always on call, always at risk. 

The risk, the potential legal riot, was worth the revenue, “Okay.” Once again he had custody of the eccentricities of the family, their business and the spider web woven of visible and invisible financial chains.

The swirling, churning chad forever circling on the street below would never engulf the eagles perched above, of that he was certain.  He put his hands in his pocket and imagined he was on that plane, heading south.  He watched as it vanished in the horizon, some day.

Jim turned his attention back to the young partner.  Joshua stood there gloating.  All those damn “J” names.  This shiney venture was new to him, rich with possibility, the power, the revenue so obvious. 

My father was a butcher at the A&P, did you know that?”

“No, sir.”

“I believe yours was a doctor?”

“Right, orthopod.”

“You ever consider going into medicine?”

“For a while.”

“I never considered being a butcher.”

Bank_of_America_Tower_Dalllas_Tx

Ripple Effect

This novel is called the ‘ripple effect.’  Every tsunami begins with a small tremor.  At the center is the woman so many backed for judge for their own selfish reasons.

ripple

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

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:

CourtStuff

Mandamus and Appellate History of D’Metria Benson After 2012  

(The Illustrated Version)

(work in progress will be expanded and updated)

_______________________________________

In Re: Victor Enterprises, Inc. 

Mandamus Granted for the Third Time: Link Here

Texas Lawyer Article 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 appears 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, it’s 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 like 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 heard 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.

 _____________________________________________

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 where 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. 

_____________________________________________

Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Supreme Court Texas NO. 10-0775

Reverse – 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

Baron-budd

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_Benson_Deposition_Henderson_County_Texas

_______________________________________

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 PartyType 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

 ________________________________________________

OMP DEVELOPMENT, LLC., ICI CONSTRUCTION, INC., PAVECON COMMERCIAL CONCRETE, LTD., G&D POOL & SPA, INC., H.E. JONES & COMPANY, INC. D/B/A LASTING IMPRESSIONS LANDSCAPE, AND 2600 MONTGOMERY, LLC HYDROTECH ENGINEERING, INC. AND SWABACK PARTNERS, PLLC

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

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.

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

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

Van-Shaw-Law-Firm=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. 

It is ORDERED that appellees OMP DEVELOPMNET, LLC, ICI CONSTRUCTION, INC., PAVECON COMMERCIAL CONCRETE, LTD., G&D POOL & SPA, INC., H.E.
JONES & COMPANY, INC. d/b/a LASTING IMPRESSIONS LANDSCAPE, AND 2600 MONTGOMERY, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellants SWABACK
PARTNERS, PLLC, AND HYDROTECH ENGINEERING, INC..

_______________________________________

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

Intern2

Trial Counsel Appellee:  WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, LLP

Kent Workman of Walters Balido & Crain, LLP served as an intern to D’Metria Benson Kent 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 19thday of November, 2014.

_________________

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
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

_________________

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
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.

donation

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

Van-Shaw-Law-Firm=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

______________________________________________________
Ever Construction Corp & Jason Kang Sung S
Reversed and Rendered Take Nothing
Cause Number:  05-13-00385-CV; Date Filed: 03/20/2013
- See more at: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-13-00385-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.OT52Z8yG.dpuf
Party PartyType Representative
Su, Sung Appellee Scott E. Hayes
Kichul Kim
Ever Construction Corp. and Jason Kang Appellant Andrew J. Holen
Julia F. Pendery

– See more at: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-13-00385-CV&coa=coa05#sthash.OT52Z8yG.dpuf

 

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

Van-Shaw-Law-Firm=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. 

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

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.

D’Metria Benson’s Self Indulgent Expenses Unique = Other CCL Judges Do NOT Engage in this Conduct

D'Metria Benson Campaign Finance Expense and Fund Raising

D’Metria Benson

D'Metria Benson Fund RaisersDMetria_Benson_Give-early-give-oftenDo_Not_Re-Elect_DMetria_Bensons_Campaign+2

 

 

Making D’Metria Benson a Judge is Like Giving Your Teenager a Priceless Vehicle

D'Metria Benson Incompetem

 

________________________________________________

Compare D’Metria Benson’s Campaign Finance Expenses with those of the three other Judges of Dallas County Courts at Law.

While D’Metria is paying for $646 for a trip to the Omni Hotel in FORT WORTH, TEXAS, with campaign financed money, Judge Sally Montgomery spends $86.

While D’Metria is racking up the expenses for FOUR Fund Raisers and soliciting funds from attorney who practice in her court King Fifer is having a FUN but low key drop in at St. Petes Dancin Marlin.

While D’Metria Benson cannot be bothered to completely fill out her expenditure reports and they are often illegible Judge Mark Greenberg is turning in detailed and complete typed reports.

While Sally Montgomery is chipping in on a birthday cake from Krogers and contributing to floral memorials D’Metria Benson is having a $300 plus luncheon at Neimans.

While King Fifer is giving a gift card for $25 D’Metria Benson is buying over $1400 worth of office decor in two shopping sprees a month apart at the same store.

While Mark Greenberg is contributing to worthy causes D’Metria is spending the Fourth of July at an expensive Texas Resort preceded by back-to-back trips to Santa Fe and Austin.

D’Metria’s office decor charges, food and beverage, travel, luxury hotels, Fourth of July outing to a Texas resort and stay at an expensive Santa Fe Hotel are completely out of line with the extremely limited in in some cases complete absence of travel charges by the other three County Court at Law Judges.

Office Decor!

Office-Decor-D'Metria-Benson-2014

D'Metria Benson More Office Decor!

D’Metria Benson More Office Decor!

Link here to review the reports:

D’Metria’s Gifts:  Did the gift card read, “From the attorneys who practice in County Court at Law Number One?”gifts6Christmas=Shopping-DMetria

Gifts

 

State Ethics Campaign Finance Reporting   Link Here

TIME OF MAKING EXPENDITURE

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.

Credit Card Expenditures. For purposes of 30 day and 8 day pre-election reports, the date of an expenditure made by a credit card is the date of the purchase, not the date of the credit card bill. For purposes of other reports, the date of an expenditure made by a credit card is the date of receipt of the credit card statement that includes the expenditure.

Looks like we have more gifts!!

MoreGifts=October11

D’Metria never too busy to travel and bill the attorneys who practice in her Court.

See more here:  D’Metria Benson Travel, Gifts, Office Decor and More!

D'Metria Benson Four Fund Raisers

All the gifts should come with a card: “From the attorneys who practice in CCL1 not to mention the Mediators!”

Create and Host Websites for Less than $100

D'Metria Benson

D’Metria Benson

If you are creative, you can create and host website for MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN $100.

IPage is a great hosting company.  Hosting is $1.99 a MONTH and you can host more than one website for that price.   So, two domains are one dollar a month!  Three domains 66 cents a month.  You get the idea!

Domain Names are about the same price.

Get your friends together and make videos. Posting them on YouTube; YouTube is FREE!

Facebook is Free!

WordPress hosting platforms are free.

Hosting information for IPage:   Link Here: http://www.ipage.com/ipage/index.html

D'Metria_Benson_Straight Ticket Party Voting

D’Metria_Benson_Straight Ticket Party Voting Texas

D’Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge

D’Metria Benson Conduct Off the Bench Is as Questionable as her Conduct on the Bench.

D'Metria Benson Campaign Donors

The Judgemobile. What Happens in Henderson County, Stays in Henderson County. Right?

D'Metria Benson and Lorraine Raggio travel to Henderson County

D’Metria Benson and Lorraine Raggio travel to Henderson County: “D’Metria Is a Righteous Woman,” said Lorraine to the Court. (Self-righteous?)

Read the Deposition here.

The deposition has been temporarily replaced.  If you need a copy please download it.  It will be removed shortly.

Campaign Contributions

D'Metria Benson Campaign Finance Reports

As a candidate or officeholder, you alone, not the campaign treasurer, are responsible for filing this form.

JUDICIAL CANDIDATE/OFFICEHOLDER
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT – FORM JC/OH – INSTRUCTION GUIDE

SCHEDULE B(J): PLEDGED CONTRIBUTIONS (JUDICIAL):  5. DATE: Enter the date you accepted the pledge.

Missing-dates

 

Link Here for 2013 – 2014 Donors to D’Metria Benson’s Four Campaign Fund Raisers

No other County Court Judge has expended fees for travel and entertainment as has D’Metria Benson.

Motion to Recuse Unsuccessful Based Upon Campaign Contributions

A Motion to Recuse Judge Cortez, the 44th District Court judge, addressed campaign contributions lead counsel made which were characterized as “large and curiously timed contributions” to Judge Cortez’s re-election campaign.

Cortez was recused but not based on the contributions as reflected in the Recusal Order.

Jeffrey Tillotson, a partner at Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, donated $5,000 to Cortez’s campaign a week before a key hearing in the case in May 2013, together with a $2,500 contribution from Tillotson’s law firm were made to Cortez’s re-election campaign the day after Cortez ruled in favor of Tillotson’s clients.

Tillotson’s personal contribution was made at a public fundraiser hosted by Cortez and properly reported in the campaign finance report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Read more:  Texas Lawyer Here.

Cannot always read D’Metria’s Reports Some Reports Have Missing Information

No-Address-Wormington

 

Karen Brooks $2500 Donation D'Metria Benson

Karen Brooks $2500 Donation D’Metria Benson