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
Haynes and Boone PAC
- 2011/11/15, $5000.00
- 2003/11/14, 5000.00
Baron & Budd 2003 $5,000
Haynes & Boone PAC 2014\09\29, $5000.00
Haynes & Boone PAC 2010\04\26, $5000.00
Cortell, Nina of Haynes & Boone, 2010\05\12, $100.00
Haynes & Boone 2011\11\17, $5000.00
Haynes & Boone 2007\09\12, $5000.00
Haynes & Boone, Attorney, Partner: Freytag, Sharon 2007\09\17, $250.00
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
Haynes Boone 2012\06\25, $2500.00
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
Haynes and Boone Political Action Committee
- 2013\11\26, $1500.00
- 2011\11\15, $1000.00
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.
SATIRICAL VIDEO SOON
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.
DONATIONS CAN BE RETURNED.
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 ______________ .
FUND RAISING FOR
TO BEGIN MID-MAY 2015
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.
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.
III. THE STATE’S PROSECUTORIAL HEDGE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BET
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 email@example.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.
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.