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:

CourtStuff

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)

______________________________________________________________
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

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!

Test:  Are you laughing.  I hope so.  You need a sense of humor to endure this tragedy.

D'Metria Benson TExas State Supreme Court

 

Benedict Olusola, M.D. Nteesha S. Smith 

05-14-01582-CV
12/19/2014
Malpractice
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

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=80702b09-a472-4a8b-b799-9f98b82abb2d&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=0952bae5-9c9a-45a7-a80b-91409f275403

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 

Ms. Smith does not appear to have found an attorney and did not submit a brief.

Ms. Smith does not appear to have found an attorney and did not submit a brief.

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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

COURT ADMINISTRATOR DUTIES, STATEMENTS VIS-A-VIS JUDICIAL CONDUCT

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

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.

_________________________________________

Kendall Law Group Moves to Withdraw on Interlocutory Appeal

Cause Number:  05-15-00187-CV

Filed:  02/12/2015
Fiesta Mart, Inc. v. Michael Dasilva
Interlocutory Appeal – Fiesta Mart, Inc.  Appellant’s Brief filed:  March 12, 2015
STATEMENT OF THE CASE In the underlying proceeding, Michael DaSilva (“DaSilva” or “Appellee”) brought Texas statutory claims of disability discrimination against Fiesta Mart, Inc. (“Fiesta Mart” or “Appellant”) arising out of work-related injuries. REC 132. Fiesta Mart filed an Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings (the “Motion”) based upon an express, written arbitration agreement between the parties. REC 6-126.

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

The trial court abused discretion by denying the Motion because:

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

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

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

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

See:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=60e36b64-0149-460f-b3ab-12941513db54&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=334adde0-8699-49c5-a2cf-06e5aba7b0a7

Unopposed Motion to Withdraw by Kendall Law Group:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=e60ba6f8-00b8-469a-b1fa-b0c0c7feb1be&coa=coa05&DT=Motion&MediaID=bea04580-1f16-4ac7-93b4-48139bbd5838

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

Motion to Withdraw:

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

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=e60ba6f8-00b8-469a-b1fa-b0c0c7feb1be&coa=coa05&DT=Motion&MediaID=bea04580-1f16-4ac7-93b4-48139bbd5838

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

For the 2014 Campaign the Kendall Law Group donated $2,500.

Be careful what you wish for.

_____________________________________________

 

Kendall Law Group presumably submitted the order, asked for the remedy and now wants to withdraw.  The Appellant’s case looks very strong.  D’Metria Benson’s Order appears, from the filed interlocutory appeal to be inconsistent with the law.  Can Kendall Law Group NOT muster a plausible legal response to support the actions they requested that D’Metria Benson take on behalf of their client?  I believe we would all like to read ANY position Kendall Law Group might have on behalf of their client.

 

Order-DMetria_Benson_Michael_Dasilve_Fiesta_Mart_Inc.

Appellant’s Brief at page 8:

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

Appellant’s Brief at  page 31:

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

PRAYER

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

The Appellate Court

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

Fiesta Mart Inc. Order Denied to withdraw for Kendall Law Group

Fiesta Mart Inc. Order Denied to withdraw for Kendall Law Group

6.5. Withdrawal

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

(a) Contents of Motion.

A motion for leave to withdraw must contain the following:

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

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

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

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

(b) Delivery to Party.

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

(c) If Motion Granted.

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

(d) Exception for Substitution of Counsel.

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

 Michael_DaSilva_Withdraw_Appeal+Dallas Joe_Kendall_Motion+Withdraw_Michael_Dasilva_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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 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

 ________________________________________________

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 

 

REVERSE AND REMANDED

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.
Petitioner’s Brief is due February 19, 2015. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE DISFAVORED.

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

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 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.

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

 Sofia_Borquez_Oral_Argument
______________________________________________________
OCCUPATION OF DONOR NOT LISTED ON 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT
AS REQUIRED
Weinstein & Riley, P.S.  v.  Larry Blankenship, et al. 
Cause Number:  05-14-00902-CV  Date Filed: 07/10/2014 
Oral Argument Set: 
June 03, 2015 at 3:00 PM. The panel hearing the case will consist of Justice Lang-Miers, Justice Brown and Justice Schenck.

Another question of jurisdiction – another D’Metria Donor.

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:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=4932afd6-a1dd-4564-b2ab-318b94b484ec&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=ab1073ac-c134-4f2a-ae93-8e70061913bf

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.

Reply Brief of Appellant:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=4932afd6-a1dd-4564-b2ab-318b94b484ec&coa=coa05&DT=Brief&MediaID=ab1073ac-c134-4f2a-ae93-8e70061913bf

In their response, Appellees have failed to refute Appellant’s demonstration that the Order must be reversed and the case dismissed as moot. The Plaintiffs have not alleged that they suffered any harm, nor did they, by reason of Appellant’s delay in filing the name change rider. They have not suffered any legally cognizable damage and they therefore lack standing to prosecute these moot claims, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the Order. It was error for the trial court to enter the Order, and this Court should reverse the Order and dismiss the case with prejudice.

______________________________________________________
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

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 IssuedAugust 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
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.

All
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.

All
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.

All
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]

Hecate
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.

_______________________________________

The Texas Two-Step

CDx Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc.   and Haynes & Boone Fontanive

Fontanive v. Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc. simultaneously in Federal Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division

 

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  petition the federal 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  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 of contract  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?

Haynes+Boone_CCL+One_Careful_Crafting

To Craft:  Websters Dictionary  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/craft

1.   skill in planning, making, or executing : dexterity
2.   an occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill
3.   skill in deceiving to gain an end
4.   the members of a trade or trade association

Haynes & Boone Caris Life Sciences CDx v. Fontanive

Haynes & Boone Caris Life Sciences CDx v. Fontanive

MARSHA FONTANIVE, Appellant,
vs.
CDX HOLDINGS, INC. Appellee.

Court of Appeals Fifth Judicial District Texas:  05-14-01391-CV:  http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=59fbc921-6dd1-461b-be18-c04aef8181aa&coa=coa05&DT=Motion&MediaID=a918eb35-26d8-440b-89ed-47915f1aab41

County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Cause No. CC-14-01736-A:  http://courts.dallascounty.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=4892835

CCL One Time Line with EMERGENCY:
04/11/2014 ORIGINAL PETITION
06/13/2014 MOTION – DISMISS*
07/02/2014 ORIGINAL ANSWER
08/12/2014  EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
09/23/2014 SUPPLEMENTAL – RESPONSE
09/26/2014 CORRESPONDENCE – LETTER TO FILE
10/06/2014 CROSS CLAIM
10/17/2014 ORDER
10/23/2014 CORRESPONDENCE – LETTER TO FILE
10/27/2014 ORIGINAL ANSWER of Plaintiff to Counterclaims
10/27/2014  NOTICE – APPEAL BY FONTANIVE2/12/15  AMENDED APPELLATE BRIEF FILED FONTANIVE2/9/15    CDx FILED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TIME TO RESPOND3/26/15  CDx SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION TIME TO RESPOND5/4/15    CDx RESPONSE BRIEF DUE IN APPELLATE May 4, 2015

6/4/15  CDx Response due in Federal Court to Third Amended Complaint

*MOTION – DISMISS  (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer BENSON, D’METRIA)  60MIN

Reset by Court to 08/08/2014

Reset by Court to 08/15/2014

Reset by Court to 08/29/2014

Reset by Court to 09/26/2014

Reset by Court to 08/28/2014

 Whistleblowing_Breach_Contract_Statute

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

D’Metria Benson Campaign Donation Time Line
D’Metria Benson Five Fund Raisers:

June 6, 2013

October 2, 2013

May 1, 2014

September 23, 2014

March 2, 2015

 Next anticipated fund raiser:  May or June 2017

 

Haynes & Goone

Haynes & Boone PAC 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

Baron & Budd PAC $2000: June 6, 2013

Denyse Clancy Esq.  $1000 donation September 23, 2014

John Langdoc:  $1,000  donation September 18, 2014

Baron & Budd $2,000 donation October 30, 2014

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Third Amended Complaint Filed March 30, 2015 against Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc.  in Northern District of Texas Dallas Division

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Cause Number:  3:10-cv-02237-P-BH

Fontanive et al v. Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc. 
Jorge A Solis, presiding

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND (Link Here) against Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc filed by Lindsey Vitez, Marsha Fontanive, March 30, 2015.

Motion to Extend Time:  Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc.  

Defendants deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint against Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc.  shall be filed by June 4, 2015.   A party with the burden of proof on a claim shall serve its designation of expert witnesses and to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) until June 19, 2015.  The rebuttal designation of expert witnesses in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2) shall be served by July 30, 2015.   (Ordered by Chief Judge Jorge A Solis on 3/30/2015)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Caris Diagnostics, Inc, Caris Life Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Inc, Caris MPI Inc, Miraca Life Sciences Inc.  (Transcript Link Here)

 

What+Side_Bread)_Buttered_On (100 of 1)

A Closer Look at Some of the Parties and Claims

Golly, gee, this looks like a pretty big case against a pretty big company over there in federal court.  Now why would they want to bring this little bitty $71K claim to a county court at law in Dallas County rather than just stay on over there in federal court?  I bet those lawyers charge more than $50 an hour and you got four of them with their names on the stipulation and that appeal.  Yee-haw, that’s a lot of billing hours for $71,000.

http://courts.dallascounty.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=4892835

What do you figure the cost for this $71K claim would be at $200 an hour?  $300 an hour?  $350 an hour.  Wouldn’t take long to rack up $71K in attorneys fees here.  At somewhere around 200 hours in billing, the $71K claim value is zero.  Maybe it’s just the principle of the matter … and you have to admire that!

Binding_Stipulation_Caris_Life_Services

Haynes&Boone_Attorneys

Haynes & Boone for Miraca Holdings, Inc.

Miraca Holdings , a Japanese diagnostics and laboratory testing service provider,  purchased a unit of U.S.-based Caris Life Sciences for $725 million.  Caris Diagnostics specializes in anatomic pathology testing services with laboratories located in Texas, Massachusetts and Arizona.  Miraca, created through a merger of two firms in 2005, generates the bulk of its revenues through its clinical laboratory testing business, which tests specimens collected from hospitals, medical clinics and other clients.  The purchase was in part motivated by the strong yen. Lazard advised Miraca on the transaction.

Baron & Budd for Marsha Fontanive

See Third Amended Complaint: http://www.dmetriabenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Caris_Life_Sciences_Third_Amended_Petition_Fontanive_3-30-15.pdf

Relator, Marsha Fontanive, is an individual citizen of the United States and a current resident of the State of Florida. By virtue of her previous position with Caris Diagnostics, Inc., she became aware of the fraudulent billing practices set forth herein. Relator has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations in this Complaint are based. She is an original source of information given to the United States regarding Defendants’ knowing pursuit of illegal conduct in violation of federal laws and regulations that resulted in the payment of fraudulent claims.

Relator has provided the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas with an original and two supplemental statements of material evidence and documentary evidence supporting the claims of wrongdoing.

Baron & Budd for Lindsey Vitez

See Third Amended Complaint: http://www.dmetriabenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Caris_Life_Sciences_Third_Amended_Petition_Fontanive_3-30-15.pdf

Relator, Lindsey Vitez, is an individual citizen of the United States and a current resident of the State of Texas. By virtue of her previous position with Caris Diagnostics, Inc., she became aware of the fraudulent billing practices set forth herein. Relator has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations in this Complaint are based. She is an original source of information given to the United States regarding Defendants’ knowing pursuit of illegal conduct in violation of federal laws and regulations that resulted in the payment of fraudulent claims. Relator has provided the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas with an original and two supplemental statements of material evidence and documentary evidence supporting the claims of wrongdoing.

. At the end of March 2011, after her performance review meeting, Ms. Vitez was offered a new position in hematology with a substantial pay increase of $19,000 per year, based upon her performance.

As described above, Ms. Vitez was retaliated against by Caris after she: (1) informed Caris of systematic billing errors and fraud that she discovered, (2) reported to her supervisors on numerous occasions about the fraudulent activity, and (3) refused to comply with Caris’ requests to overlook errors and assist in committing further fraud by hiding the errors and altering audits.

DEFENDANTS’ ILLEGAL RETALIATION AGAINST RELATOR LINDSEY VITEZ

151. From November 2009 through April 2010, Ms. Vitez was assigned to several high profile projects to correct errors worth millions of dollars to Caris. Ms. Vitez’s assignment was to identify underbilling by Caris and internal coding errors and trends. Ms. Vitez had been instructed by Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore to work accounts that had been placed on hold for procedural and documentation discrepancies.

152. Ms. Vitez discovered a pattern of billing errors that cost Caris money and organized these findings in a spreadsheet. In February 2010, Ms. Vitez was scolded in front of coworkers by Anita Hunsinger, for documenting Caris’s billing errors.

153. Beginning in March of 2010, Ms. Vitez performed an internal Medicare audit in which she pulled and reviewed 250 reports for the external Medicare auditor, Larry Small. The audit was prepared for the first quarter of 2010, and reports from each lab were pulled according to the instructions provided by Mr. Williams and Ms. Gilmore. When Ms. Vitez began this audit, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger suggested to Ms. Vitez that she become a certified auditor, so she could apply for the more lucrative position of internal auditor. As her audit progressed, however, Ms. Vitez discovered that approximately one-third of the 250 selected reports had significant coding errors. As described in greater detail throughout this Complaint, Ms. Vitez identified numerous errors during her audit of these reports that led to overbilling, and she shared her concern regarding the high error rate with Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore.

154. Coding, as described earlier, is used to inform insurance companies and Medicare of the services billed by a physician and the corresponding diagnoses/findings that justify the medical necessity of the services rendered. Diagnostic codes impact reimbursement because they establish medical necessity, and procedural codes impact the rate at which the physician is reimbursed. Therefore, any error in coding is significant and can lead to overpayment. Coding errors are distinct and easy to identify because the documentation provided must support the diagnosis and the level of services provided.

155. Ms. Vitez raised the issue of Caris’ improper billing and the resulting overpayment of services by Medicare to Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore. Ms. Vitez was instructed by Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger to alter the accounts pulled until a lower error rate was reflected. On March 26, 2010, Ms. Vitez delivered the audit findings to Ms. Hunsinger, who reprimanded Ms. Vitez for documenting the coding errors. Ms. Hunsinger stated, “I told you not to put them in a spreadsheet because the error rate is too high and you need to pull different reports because we are not going to submit those to the auditor.” Another employee, Jennifer Fannin, witnessed this exchange. Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore wanted Ms. Vitez to pull different reports that did not have coding errors to submit to Larry Small, the third party auditor.

156. Ms. Vitez met with Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger and told them that audit findings are used to improve the quality of coding. However, instead of attempting to correct these errors, Ms. Vitez was berated by Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore and was told to conceal the errors by replacing the existing reports with error-free reports. Ms. Vitez refused to comply. Consequently, she was removed from the auditing assignment and from her previous assignment identifying underbilling, positions she had held for the prior sixteen months. These projects had produced a significant amount of overtime compensation for Ms. Vitez, and she was financially penalized when Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore withdrew her assignments.

157. Shortly after refusing to alter these accounts, Ms. Vitez was accused by Ms. Hunsinger of taking frequent breaks. Ms. Vitez was singled out and instructed to sign in and out each time that she left her desk, including for bathroom breaks, lunch, and allowed break times. Ms. Vitez was instructed by Ms. Hunsinger to note where she would be and what she would be doing each time she left her desk. Ms. Vitez’ monthly bonus was docked any time that she was late to work. Ms. Vitez was financially penalized for any office absence, even when due to hospitalization and illness. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger threatened other co-workers, including Dolores Montes, Toya Carter, and Blake Mauldin, to stay away from Ms. Vitez.

158. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger also interrogated several coders and other billing staff, including Treva Boatwright, Dana Craig, and Bitsy Gilliland in April 2010 in an attempt to gather information forming a basis to terminate Ms. Vitez. When Ms. Vitez inquired to Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger about the auditing position that they had previously discussed, Ms. Vitez was told that the position would not be created. Shortly thereafter, however, the position was created and filled with someone other than Ms. Vitez.

159. Ms. Vitez reported the unethical treatment and direction by her supervisor and manager to Caris’ Compliance Officer and Attorney, John Rasmussen. The final audit report was sent to the auditor, Larry Small, who tampered with and misrepresented the audit report findings, concealing the errors that had been identified by Ms. Vitez and confirmed by Anita Hunsinger and Betty Gilmore. Mr. Small appeared before the coding department and reported a virtually flawless audit in May 2010, despite the fact that Ms. Vitez had identified what Ms. Hunsinger and Ms. Gilmore agreed were significant coding errors. Mr. Small was shortly thereafter hired in-house by Caris to work with the compliance and legal staff. Mr. Small is a long-time friend of Dale Williams.

160. In April 2010, Ms. Vitez filed an anonymous report through the Ethics Point website. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Vitez personally contacted John Rasmussen and Dale Williams. Ms. Vitez reported the directions given to her by Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Hunsinger to alter the audit findings, as well as her own concerns about Caris’s billing practices. She provided examples of reports that Anita Hunsinger had altered without the pathologists’ consent and discussed her concerns regarding the overbilling and unbundling of consultations and the practice of coding from the LCD and NCD policies to ensure reimbursement. Dale Williams responded to Ms. Vitez that coding was “subjective” and that Ms. Mize was allowed to code from the NCD and LCD policies in lieu of a documented diagnosis. None of these reported errors were ever corrected. Mr. Williams also stated that diagnostic coding did not affect reimbursement. This statement is clearly untrue

161. On May 11, 2010, Ms. Vitez was promised by John Rasmussen, Ken McGill, and Dale Williams that there was zero tolerance for retaliation and that Ms. Vitez would not be retaliated against for reporting her findings. Anita Hunsinger was terminated from her employment with Caris. On that same day, Betty Gilmore interviewed Dana Craig, a co-worker of Ms. Vitez, and asked Ms. Craig if she knew for how long Ms. Vitez had been trying to have Ms. Hunsinger fired. Apparently, Ms. Gilmore viewed Ms. Hunsinger’s termination as the result of Ms. Vitez’s reports of fraud by Caris and immediately began to retaliate against her. Ms. Gilmore also stated to Ms. Vitez’s co-workers, Patricia Kalley and Treva Boatwright, that it was Ms. Vitez’s fault that Ms. Hunsinger was fired. Ms. Gilmore threatened Ms. Vitez’s co-worker, Dolores Montes, to choose her friends wisely after Ms. Montes was seen taking a break with Ms. Vitez. Ms. Gilmore then ceased speaking with Ms. Vitez and blamed her for the “falling apart” of the coding department.

162. Ms. Hunsinger was replaced by Lorena Reyes as Coding Supervisor in July 2010. Ms. Reyes and Ms. Gilmore continued to target Ms. Vitez in retaliation for her reports of fraud and for Ms. Hunsinger’s termination. From July 2010 through November 2010, Ms. Vitez was not allowed to work on any special projects and was not granted any overtime, while other coders were. Working on such projects had previously been an important part of Ms. Vitez’s job. In December 2010, Ms. Reyes began administering points towards termination for Ms. Vitez’s attendance. This points policy was not enforced company-wide. In fact, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Gilmore created a written points policy specifically for the coding department after Ms. Vitez requested to see documentation justifying the points policy.

163. On March 4, 2011, Ms. Vitez spoke with David Silko, the Vice President of Reimbursement, who was in training to replace Dale Williams upon his retirement. Ms. Vitez reported to Mr. Silko the fraud she had identified, the audits she had conducted, and the retaliation she had endured from Anita Hunsinger, Betty Gilmore, and Lorena Reyes.

164. On March 8 or March 9, 2011, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes took Ms. Vitez to the Cotton Patch Café to intimidate Ms. Vitez. Ms. Vitez, against her wishes, was seated in a booth directly between Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes. Ms. Gilmore began the conversation with the statement, “If you go to HR, I will deny it. Lorena, if you go to HR, I will deny it.” Ms. Gilmore told Ms. Vitez that she hated Ms. Vitez for what she had done to Ms. Hunsinger and would never forgive her for it. She also stated that Ms. Vitez was the reason that the coding department was falling apart, because she caused the termination of Ms. Hunsinger. Ms. Gilmore further stated that she wanted to fire Ms. Vitez, but that Mr. Silko supported Ms. Vitez due to her excellent performance.

165. At the end of March 2011, after her performance review meeting, Ms. Vitez was offered a new position in hematology with a substantial pay increase of $19,000 per year, based upon her performance. As Ms. Vitez’s supervisors, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes made this offer to Ms. Vitez. In order to make this new position uncomfortable for Ms. Vitez, Ms. Vitez was told that she would train with Amanda Mize, Anita Hunsinger’s daughter, for 30 days when she began the position. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes also told Ms. Vitez that they would open the position for interviewing, but that it was certain that Ms. Vitez would receive the position.

166. In April 2011, Ms. Vitez reported years of coding errors made by Caris for molecular accounts. In retaliation, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes rescinded the hematology position offer and informed Ms. Vitez that the position would not be created. In May 2011, the hematology position was filled by Toya Carter, a previous contract coder with no hematology experience and was much less qualified for the position than Ms. Vitez. Betty Gilmore and Lorena Reyes also interrogated various employees, including Miesha Ray, in an attempt to gather information forming a basis to terminate Ms. Vitez.

167. After over a year of reporting to her supervisors about the fraud she discovered, on or about April 2011, Ms. Vitez began to suffer from severe depression and insomnia due to the harsh working conditions she faced from her supervisors and the excessive stress that they created for her. Ms. Vitez continued to be harassed by Caris and its supervisors, despite numerous attempts to report retaliation to Human Resources employees, including Joe Ellison, Ken McGill, and Lesley Knutson.

168. On June 15, 2011, Ms. Vitez reported to Vice President of Reimbursement David Silko, Lesley Knutson of Human Resources, and Coding Group Lead Dana Craig. She informed the group that Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Reyes had retaliated against her and recounted the specific ways that she had suffered. Just two days after reporting this retaliation, on June 17, 2011, Ms. Vitez was removed from her current daily assignments by Ms. Gilmore and reduced to working undesirable, menial assignments such as scanning, faxing, and stapling. On June 24, 2011, Ms. Vitez learned from Toya Carter that Ms. Gilmore had called Ms. Carter at home, after work, and instructed Ms. Carter to stay away from Ms. Vitez.

169. On June 27, 2011, Ms. Vitez again spoke with John Rasmussen about the retaliation that she had experienced from Ms. Gilmore. She also met with David Silko and Toya Carter to address the ongoing harassment by Ms. Gilmore. These meetings failed to correct her situation.

170. Subsequently, due to the ongoing retaliation that she experienced, Ms. Vitez was forced to resign in June of 2011. Ms. Vitez, after assurances that she would not endure retaliation, suffered direct retaliation for over one year. Ms. Vitez reached out to all levels of Caris management and to human resources, but received no aid.

171. As described above, each time Ms. Vitez refused to overlook the fraud she discovered from her audits, she was berated, scolded, or reprimanded. Ms. Vitez was isolated from her coworkers, removed from assignments, and not allowed to work overtime. Caris also rescinded job offers and removed Ms. Vitez from eligible promotions on several occasions, despite the fact that Ms. Vitez was the highest producer in Caris’ coding department.

172. As described above, Ms. Vitez was retaliated against by Caris after she: (1) informed Caris of systematic billing errors and fraud that she discovered, (2) reported to her supervisors on numerous occasions about the fraudulent activity, and (3) refused to comply with Caris’ requests to overlook errors and assist in committing further fraud by hiding the errors and altering audits.

173. By contrast, employees who engaged in, condoned, and directed Caris’s abovedescribed systematic submission of false claims to the Federal Government continued their Caris employment and remained responsible for determining how claims would be submitted to the Federal Government. Dale Williams, the Caris VP of Reimbursement who directly condoned Caris’s submission of false claims to the Federal Government via the practices of unbundling, duplicate billing, and billing for undocumented services, continued serving as a Caris Vice President of Reimbursement through the end of 2013. Betty Gilmore, the Coding Supervisor under whom Caris routinely submitted false claims for unbundled services, undocumented services, and overbilled procedures such as appendix biopsies, continued supervising Caris’s submission of claims for reimbursement to the Federal Government through September 2011. Amanda Mize, who routinely submitted Medicare claims without proper supporting documentation and/or physician diagnoses, continued to be responsible for supervising and implementing Caris reimbursement and medical coding practices through at least May 2014. Lorena Reyes, who instructed employees to use the -59 modifier to facilitate improper unbundling of code stacks, was employed by Caris as a Billing Operations Manager through July 2012.

COUNT III ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) 

196. Relator Lindsey Vitez restates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 195 above as if each were stated herein in its entirety, and said allegations are incorporated herein by reference.

197. This is a claim under the anti-retaliatory provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., as amended.

198. By virtue of the acts described herein, Defendants demoted, threatened, harassed, and in other manners discriminated against Relator Vitez in the terms and conditions of her employment because of lawful acts done by Ms. Vitez in furtherance of efforts to stop one or more violations of the False Claims Act by the Defendants.

199. By virtue of the acts described herein, Defendants demoted, threatened, harassed, and in other manners discriminated against Relator Vitez in the terms and conditions of her employment because of lawful acts done by Ms. Vitez in furtherance of an action under the False Claims Act.

200. Relator Vitez has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, in substantial amounts to be determined at trial.

FALSE CLAIMS FOR COMPROMISED HEMATOLOGY TESTS – Third Amended Complaint Page 29

81. In July 2009, Mark Shankin, Ph.D., a clinical pathologist responsible for performing Heme testing at Caris’s Phoenix laboratory, made a field visit to Ms. Fontanive’s territory. The purpose of Dr. Shankin’s visit was to make sales calls with Ms. Fontanive and answer customer questions about Caris’s Heme testing services. During the visit, Dr. Shankin expressed grave concerns regarding the heat issue to Ms. Fontanive. Dr. Shankin described numerous samples arriving at the Phoenix laboratory with completely melted ice packs, despite recent measures taken to prevent heat damage. Dr. Shankin told Ms. Fontanive that the majority of specimens were arriving at temperatures greater than 82º F, which compromised the integrity of Caris’s tests. Dr. Shankin told Ms. Fontanive that he raised his concerns with senior management at Caris, including Michael Guidotti, Group Head of the Oncology Division, regarding the heat degradation of Heme samples. Dr. Shankin told Ms. Fontanive that shortly after reporting his concerns, Caris placed him on probation for not meeting his quota. Approximately two weeks after his visit, Dr. Shankin called Ms. Fontanive and informed her that Caris had fired him.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Recent Quote:

When you walk into CCL One you may not be certain who the smartest person in the room is, but you are damn sure who’s not the smartest.  You want more than that from a judge.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

YOU DANCE WITH THEM WHAT BRUNG YOU

DMetrria_Benson_Worst_Judge_Dallas_Texas_1200

FRONT LINE TRANSCRIPT
BOB GAMMAGE, Former Justice, Texas Supreme Court:

There’s an old saying in politics, “You dance with them what brung you.”  And it’s perfectly normal, rational and logical to be grateful to, be deferential to and respectful towards – even perhaps in disproportionate terms – those which brung you, those who helped you get there and you hope will help you stay there. If you don’t dance with them what brung you, you may not be there for the next dance.

BILL MOYERS:

The law makes a promise: Equal justice for all. If that promise is broken, if judges appear biased in favor of their campaign contributors, faith in the fundamental fairness of our courts is undermined.

[on camera] Let me just give you some statistics from a poll conducted by the Texas state supreme court and the Texas bar association, which found that 83 percent of the public think judges are already unduly influenced by campaign contributions; 79 percent of the lawyers who appear before the judges think campaign contributions significantly influence courtroom decisions, and almost half of the justices on the court think the same thing.

I mean, isn’t the verdict in from the people that they cannot trust the judicial system there anymore?

See Front Line:  Justice for Sale  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/etc/script.html

There was judicial reform subsequent to this publication … but was it enough?

 

Why?

 The question is simple.  Why do attorneys make campaign contributions in conjunction with hearings set or cases filed in County Court at Law One of Dallas County Texas?

A review of campaign contributors when matched with cases filed in CCL1 indicate a strong pattern of correlation.

 

River Road Neighborhood, 673 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. App. 1984).  Anticipation of Donation?

Texas-Flag=DMetria-Benson-Campaign-Finance

 

COMING SOON

 

A closer look at Caris Life Sciences and the Whistleblower lawsuit filed in federal court in tandem with the procedural end run Haynes & Boone has taken in CCL One with its FOUR attorneys, claim limited to $71 K in CCL One,  and the Cancer Letter!

 

Fontanive v. CDx Holdings and Caris Life Sciences

Fontanive v. CDx Holdings and Caris Life Sciences Fifth Court Appeals – Texas

Read the Pathology Blawg:  http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/caris-life-sciences-miraca-seek-have-whistleblower-case-thrown-out/#more-8647   This is bad, bad business – for everyone.

Overbilling, retaliation, kickbacks and double billing are not the only issues plaintiffs address.  There is also a claim of compromised hematology tests.

 Pathology Blawg:  Whistleblower suit against Caris Life Sciences will proceed almost untouched.  October 19, 2013.  Referencing the federal whistleblower case:

 http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/whistleblower-suit-against-caris-life-sciences-proceed-almost-untouched/

Haynes & Boone wants to win … and keeps their eye on the prize but will the appellate court get in their way?  D’Metria Benson has welcomed them with open arms!

A law professor reviews the legal and factual realities of this case,  the fundamental precedent that appears to have been ignored,  opines on the cost/reward benefit to Haynes & Boone, Claris Life Sciences, the public interest in Whistleblower lawsuits, and this case in particular, and citizens of Dallas County, Texas.

Why?  …

Haynes and Boone Black Hatted Rodeo Cow Boys YEE HAW

NOT OUR FIRST RODEO!

History of the Rodeo

The “RODEO” is thought to be the only sport that has been derived from an industry.  The Wrangler National Finals Rodeo is the Super Bowl of rodeos.  The sport of rodeoing is believed to have begun in Colorado in 1864, in search of the best cowboy though earlier origins are attributed to the Spanish conquistadors and Spanish-Mexican settlers which evolved in conjunction with the propagation of horses and cattle.

More …

Today stockyard owners sponsor many rodeos.  Judges evaluate the performance, ranking the cowboys whose income is often derived solely from the rodeo circuit.

In theory rodeo judges are unbiased and the stockyard owners have no influence in their decisions.  In theory … but rodeos, like other facets of life, are not free of _________ .

Unending Pressure to GIVE, GIVE, GIVE, GIVE, GIVE ….. (Five Gives)

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.  Most judicial candidates have a list of attorneys who endorse them.  Perhaps it has been missed, but this has not been evident in D’Metria Benson’s campaigns.  Apparently, donations from attorneys and law firms who provide financial support is more than sufficient – and the underlying reality is that it is much more effective.

It is important to fully grasp the harm done to citizens with an incompetent judge on the bench..

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.  Reviewing cases filed by these same attorneys in different courts indicates the same conduct of giving donations in conjunction with the filing of important cases does NOT exist for MANY of these donors.  Draw your own conclusion, but this is an important component of a review of the impact of FIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REQUESTS FROM D’METRIA BENSON to attorneys with cases in her court.

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

The Texas Constitution, Article V, governs judicial conduct:  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.5.htm

Texas Code Judicial Conduct: http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/txcodeofjudicialconduct.pdf

Texas Judicial Ethics Opinions:  http://www.txcourts.gov/media/678096/JudicialEthicsOpinions.pdf

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

Give=early-give-often-dmetria-benson=march-2015-fund=raiser

“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.

A corruption scandal among its state judges motivated Florida to enforce judicial ethics rules, including one prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign donations. The state has an interest an impartial application of the law by its judges in order to avoid quid-pro-quo corruption together with the appearance of corruption.

The attorney for the State of Florida argued, “The state has adopted an election system that puts judges in the political fray.  Some things necessarily come with the fact that a state has made the choice to choose judges via election.”   As long as judges are elected donors and candidates will have an avenue to corrupt the judicial process, no matter how narrow states try to regulate the contribution/donation process.

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

During arguments in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, several justices suggested there was a problem when judicial candidates solicit contributions, particularly of lawyers. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer noted that when a judge asks a lawyer to do anything, the answer normally is “yes.” There is, they said, almost an intuitive, coercive effect to a solicitation request.

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.

DMetrria_Benson_Worst_Judge_Dallas_Texas_ForSale

 

POLITICO 

But public trust is eroded when judicial candidates are forced to court big donors and spenders. And outright corruption can occur too, as we saw in Arkansas recently when a former state circuit judge pleaded guilty to having reduced a jury’s negligence award against a health care business in exchange for a campaign bribe. It was no coincidence, it turns out, that the owner of the business had funneled thousands of dollars to the judge’s campaign fund just as the judge had an epiphany: He slashed to $1 million the jury’s $5.2 million award because the original amount “shocked the conscience.” That’s not the only thing shocking about this case.  March 2015.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/judicial-elections-fundraising-115503.html#ixzz3X6RjDZVY

ARKANSAS 

In Arkansas Rep. John Baine has  proposed a bill requiring judges to not hear civil cases involving someone who gave a substantial campaign contribution if a reasonable person could perceive that the donation would impair the judge’s impartiality or if there is a “serious, objective” probability of actual bias.  The legislation would require judges who deny a motion to recuse over a contribution to do so in writing, and that motion may be appealed within 30 days of the order.

Brennan Center for Justice:  90% Voters Believe Contributions Influence Judges

[There is] a growing belief among the public and academic community that contributions may influence judges. Recent polling indicates that public confidence in the courts is bottoming out – a 2013 survey found nearly 90 percent of voters think that campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions.

Poll:  http://www.justiceatstake.org/file.cfm/media/news/toplines337_B2D51323DC5D0.pdf

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/human-costs-special-interest-influence-state-courts

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!
“NOT OUR FIRST RODEO”

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 the federal 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  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 of contract  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 gr____e’s been thrown, and there’s nothing left to do but duck and cover.  Not a first.

If you chose to read the interaction of the Court with the Haynes & Boone attorneys you skin begins to crawl as Ms. Brainin explains to the Court how her co-counsel, Mr. Kernodle will make D’Metria Benson “BELT AND SUSPENDERS” certain the Haynes & Boone suggested course of action on behalf of CDx is legally correct.  This is about as creepy as it gets in CCL One and a NOT TO BE MISSED READ.

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.

DMEtria_Benson_Law_IS_What_I_Say_IT_IS

 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.

Overruled.

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 D’Metria Benson Fund Raisers

FIVE scheduled fund raisers are helpful in reminding attorneys how important donations can be.  Who was the architect of this plan?

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 *

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.  Associate Bonuses?  Hmmm, maybe not this year but we sure can donate to D’Metria!!!!  PRIORITIES.

MARSHA FONTANIVE, Appellant,
vs.
CDX HOLDINGS, INC. Appellee.

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

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=05-14-01391-CV&coa=coa05

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 B.  in November 2006.

See:  The Economist.  George’s legacy.  The frat boy ships out.  Few people will mourn his departure

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.

GIVE EARLY and GIVE OFTEN
Haynes & Boone LLP Won the GIVE EARLY RACE

Give=early-give-often-dmetria-benson=march-2015-fund=raiser

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.  In a year when associates are grumbling about their bonuses Haynes  & Boone still manages to donate to D’Metria!

Historical Donations from Baron & Budd, Haynes & Boone and Lisa Blue Baron

A review and total of the donations from these three donors during the three campaigns totals significantly MORE than the annual median wage for an average American.  You would think if D’Metria Benson was ever going to be prepared for a hearing this would be it.  A review of the transcript leaves the impression that she was NOT prepared.  The question then becomes, does D’Metria Benson not prepare for hearings because there simply is no point?  Is she completely incapable of abstract legal analysis – and actually knows that herself.

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.

Haynes_Boone_5K_Donation_2014_Campaign_DMetria_Benson

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

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

Plaintiff’s Objection to Evidence was filed September 23, 2014.  Coincidence, no doubt.  Same date as another D’Metria Benson Fund Raiser.

Meanwhile on this same date in the Federal Case a discovery status conference was held on September 23, 2014. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff – John Langdoc, Alicia Butler, Stephen Blackburn; Defense – Stacy Brainin, Christopher Rogers, Nicole Somerville.

Barron & Budd October 20, 2014 Donation:  $2,000.

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

Denyse-Clancey-BaronBud-2014

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

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

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

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)

CDx2

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.

HaynesBooneKoolaid2

_________________________________

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.

 

2

 

If Justice Robes were required to include donors and the amounts contributed a more honest assessment of the situation could be had for everyone.

If Justice Robes were required to include donors and the amounts contributed a more honest assessment of the situation could be had for everyone.

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

 

 SATIRICAL VIDEO SOON

SKUNK-Fifth-Court-Appeals

FUND RAISING FOR

2016 ELECTIONS

TO BEGIN MID-MAY 2015

YEE-HAW

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 .  

1Fifth-Court=Appeals-Donors-Dallas

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.

4333

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.

Money, That’s What I Want!

D’Metria Benson Held a

FIFTH Campaign Fundraiser

March 2, 2015

 _____________________

Donations Accepted in

Approximately 

To GIVE

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.

Give=early-give-often-dmetria-benson=march-2015-fund=raiser

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.

http://www.dallascounty.org/campaign_finance.php

* 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.

INTEREST EARNED, OTHER CREDITS/GAINS/REFUNDS, AND PURCHASE OF INVESTMENTS   http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/JCOH_guide.htm

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

1112

CashOnHand12-31-13

2.  January 1 2013, to June 30, 2013

1-1-13

1-1-13to6-30-13

3.  July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013

7-1-13

July2013toDecember 2013

4.  January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014

1-1-14

Jan12014toJune302014

5.  July 1,2014 to September 29, 2014

30

July1-2014toSeptember29-2014

6.  September 26, 2014 to October 25, 2014

8

9=14

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

1111

September26toDecember312014

8.  Amended Expenses

1-1-13to12-31-13

1-1-14-to6-30-14

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

POLITICAL EXPENDITURES

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

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.  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

FUND-RAISING EVENTS Opinion No. 55 (1981)

QUESTION: May a judge periodically have fund-raising benefits to pay for (1) campaign costs, (2) living expenses or (3) office expenses?

ANSWER:

http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/txcodeofjudicialconduct.pdf)

(1)  Campaign Costs:

Canon 7* of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which pertains to the political activities of a judge, does not specifically address itself to fund-raising matters to cover campaign expenses; therefore, the Committee is of the opinion that it is not unethical to have fundraising benefits to raise funds to pay for campaign expenses provided the nature and type of benefit does not, in any manner, compromise the judge in his integrity, his independence in judicial affairs, nor give the appearance of impropriety.

(2) Living Expenses:

The Committee is of the opinion that fund-raising benefits to pay the living expenses of a judge would be unethical. Canon 5C(1)* of the Code of Judicial Conduct would appear to prohibit such fund-raising events as it states: A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, exploit his judicial position, or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he serves. In addition to the above, to permit such fund-raising events would seem to defeat the purpose and spirit of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(3) Office Expenses and Overhead:

The Committee is of the opinion that fund-raising benefits for the purpose of raising funds to cover the office expense or office overhead of a judge would be unethical for the same reasons he should not have such benefits to pay for his living expenses.

_______________

*Now see Canons 5 and 4b(1)

Campaign Finance Expenditure Restrictions

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

PERSONAL USE

A candidate, officeholder, or specific-purpose political committee supporting a candidate or officeholder may not use political contributions for personal purposes.

Elec. Code § 253.035.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.253.htm

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.”
Democracy-Toolbox-No-Date-Dmetria_Benson

Democracy-Toolbox-Digital-Campaign-2014

 

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

6-14-DMetria-Benson-Democracy-Toolbox=Campaign-Polling

Democracy Toolbox More D'Metria Benson Expense!

Democracy Toolbox More Expense!

DemocracyToolBox-2014

 

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.

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

 http://www.dallascounty.org/department/countyclerk/courtorders/finrpts/Benson_D’Metria/Oct2014_Dec2014.pdf

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

Write What You Know … and so she did

Shrouded by the Past

Pretense and affection shrouded the cluttered first floor law office from thread 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

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!

I don’t know, maybe she’s buying some accessories for her unbelievable office decor.  The woman has a reproduction blue brocade VICTORIAN FAINTING COUCH with matching chairs.  Her office looks like a stand-in for Miss Kitty’s Brothel on Gun Smoke.  UNBELIEVABLE.

 

 

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.

Travel-AmEx-2013

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?)  Judge Raggio retired at the end of 2012.

Read the Deposition here.

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

MAY A JUDGE SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT CERTIFYING AN ATTORNEYS LEGAL PROFICIENCY?

Opinion No. 277 (2001)

QUESTION: May a judge sign an affidavit attesting to the competency of an attorney who practices before the judge to be used in a grievance proceeding against the lawyer?

ANSWER: No. Canon 2B prohibits the lending of the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of another and convey to others the impression that the attorney is in a special position to influence the judge. In addition, a judge is specifically prohibited from voluntarily testifying as a character witness. The judge could testify at the grievance hearing if subpoenaed.

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

FIVE 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.

UPDATE MARCH 20, 2015:  Ultimately the Commission on Judicial Conduct found Cortez used campaign contributions to repay himself for about $15,000 in unsubstantiated travel expenses. That constitutes illegal conversion of political funds to personal use, the commission wrote.  Dallas News March 20, 2014.

Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk’s prosecutor, Kevin Brooks, represented Cortez after his arrest on a domestic violence charge.  Cortez now works in private practice with one of his major campaign contributors, Richardson lawyer Sean Modjarrad who was also a large contributor to D’Metria Benson.

“Judge Cortez testified that any failure to properly report political expenditures was due to the failure of an attorney hired by the judge to maintain his financial records and complete the reports,” according to the warning. “Judge Cortez testified that the attorney was unable or unwilling to provide assistance in recovering financial records that would support the reported expenditures.”

Cortez reviewed and signed the campaign finance reports, “swearing that the information contained in the reports was accurate,” the warning says.

He told the commission that he had quit using the unnamed attorney and personally prepared his most recent report. That document said he spent over $51,000 in one day last fall while “meeting with constituents” at Oishii, an Oak Lawn restaurant.

At that point, he had lost his re-election effort but not yet left office.

“Judge Cortez testified that this information was incorrect and was the result of a ‘typo,’” the warning says.

Cortez plans to amend his reports, said Pete Schulte, one of his lawyers. But the reimbursement violations “may not be cured” now that the reporting deadlines have passed, the commission wrote.

The Candidate ALONE is responsible for the campaign finance filings.

Committee Judicial Conduct regarding Carlos Cortez.  See page 37.   http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/actions/FY2015-PUBSANC.pdf

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Carlos Cortez was Judge of the 44th District Court in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.

2. On or about August 7, 2013, Judge Cortez filed a political expenditure report with the Texas Ethics Commission for travel expenses incurred in the amount of $6,267.62, for which he reimbursed himself from campaign funds.

3. On or about November 19, 2013, Judge Cortez filed political expenditure reports with the Texas Ethics Commission for travel expenses incurred in the amounts of $3,437.10, $1,932.622, and $3,562.31, for which he reimbursed himself from campaign funds.

4. These campaign finance reports, which were signed by Judge Cortez, failed to comply with the reporting requirements set forth in Texas Ethics Commission Rule §20.63.(d), in that the judge failed to disclose details of the travel expenses for which he had been reimbursed.

5. In his written responses to the Commission’s inquiries and in his testimony before the Commission, Judge Cortez was unable to provide records to substantiate that he was entitled to reimbursement for travel in the amounts reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.

6. Judge Cortez testified that any failure to properly report political expenditures was due to the failure of an attorney hired by the judge to maintain his financial records and complete the reports.

7. Judge Cortez testified that the attorney was unable or unwilling to provide assistance in recovering financial records that would support the reported expenditures.

8. Judge Cortez acknowledged that he reviewed the campaign finance reports prepared by his attorney and signed them, thereby swearing that the information contained in the reports was accurate.

9. Judge Cortez testified that he no longer used the attorney to prepare and file his campaign finance reports, and that the judge prepared and filed the most recent report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission in January 2015; however, when questioned about a $51,000 political expenditure incurred at a restaurant in October 2014, Judge Cortez testified that this information was incorrect and was the result of a “typo.”

10. Judge Cortez testified that he intended to correct the “typo” in the January 2015 report and file amended reports with the Texas Ethics Commission that either (a) accounted for the full amounts for which he had been reimbursed, or (b) reflected any offset between what the campaign owed him and for what he may have reimbursed himself that he cannot support with receipts or other financial records.

11. Pursuant to Texas Ethics Commission Rule §20.63(e), a candidate’s or officeholder’s failure to comply with subsection (d) may not be cured by filing a corrected report after the report deadline has passed.

12. Moreover, a candidate or officeholder who violates §20.63(d) is deemed to have converted political funds to personal use, in violation of Texas Election Code §253.035.

13. Audio recordings of conversations between Judge Cortez and his then-girlfriend that were publicized in the media contained numerous statements by the judge that cast public discredit upon the judiciary.

14. When questioned about the accuracy of the information contained in the published recordings, specifically in connection with the allegation that the judge had retaliated against his then-girlfriend following a fight by posting nude photos of her on the Internet, Judge Cortez refused to admit or deny the claim, stating that he would not respond because he intended to file a civil lawsuit against her.

 

Foot Notes:

2 That criminal investigation ended in March 2014, with a Dallas County grand jury failing to issue a true bill of indictment.

3 That criminal investigation concluded in July 2014, with no charges being filed against the judge.

 

 Conclusion:  

The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Cortez failed to comply with the law when he reimbursed himself from campaign funds for travel expenses that were not properly reported to the Texas Ethics Commission. The judge’s acceptance of travel reimbursements that were not supported by complete and accurate disclosures to the public as required through these reports constituted conversion of public funds to his personal use in violation of the Texas Election Code.

The fact that the reports were prepared and filed by the judge’s attorney does not mitigate Judge Cortez’s responsibility as the officeholder/candidate to ensure the accuracy of the reports before signing them.

The Commission concludes that Judge Cortez’s conduct, as described above, constitutes willful and/or persistent violations of Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Commission also concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Cortez engaged in willful conduct that resulted in the negative attention and criticism levied against him in the press during 2013 and 2014, therefore casting public discredit not just on the judge, but on the rest of the judiciary in Dallas County and across the State. While the judge contends that the Dallas County media was biased against him and motivated by a conspiracy of relationships with local attorneys who were adversarial to the judge, there is no question that Judge Cortez, through his own personal conduct, provided any person, including political enemies, and the press with sufficient information that could be used against him. The Commission concludes that Judge Cortez’s conduct, as described above, violated Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

Cannot always read D’Metria’s Reports

Some Reports Have Missing Information

 

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

 

No-Address-Wormington

Carl Tillery Donation D'Metria Benson Campaign

Carl Tillery Donation D’Metria Benson Campaign – WOULD THIS BE THE SAME CARL TILLERY WITH A CASE ON FILE IN D’METRIA’S COURT AND APPELLEE IN CAUSE NUMBER: 05-14-000902

 

Karen Brooks $2500 Donation D'Metria Benson

Karen Brooks $2500 Donation D’Metria Benson

D’Metria Benson’s Little Sham Problem

Deposition Here
  Read the Appellate Court Opinion Here.

D’Metria Benson Livin’ Large

D'Metria Benson

D’Metria Livin’ Large off the largesse of attorneys who practice in her Court!  

Luncheon at Neimans!

Fourth of July at Hyatt Lost Pines, an expensive Texas Resort.  

DMetria-Benson_Fourth_July-Hyatt

Santa Fe  and Austin back-to-back Trips:

 

D'Metria Benson Campaign Finance Expense

 

Office Decor Exceed $1400

officedecor2 OfficeDecor1

 

 

    D’Metria Benson  2013 – 2014
Contributions Expenditures
$187,933 $139,009

 

An average family of four could live for ONE YEAR and TWO month on the cost of two of D’Metria’s Four Fundraisers.

An average family of four the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion: cost for a moderate meal plan in the United States is $771.10 per month.

A picture is emerging of an out of touch, self indulgent woman who is neither competent to be a judge nor in touch with the value of money and/or the struggles of the average family.

June 6, 2013 Fund Raiser      
       
06/06/13 Invitation Printing Reilly Echols $1,468.00
06/06/13 Bulk Mailing Order Desk $1,085.00
06/06/13 Tony Grimes Photography Irving, Texas $375.00
06/06/13 Venue Times Ten $1,258.00
       
Total     $4,186.00
       
       
October 2, 2103 Fund Raiser      
       
10/01/13 Bulk Mailing-Fund Raiser Order Desk $1,442.00
10/01/13 Printing Fundraiser Reilly Echols $2,420.00
10/01/13 Modjarrad & Abusaad Food & Bev In Kind $3,138.00
       
Total     $7,000.00
       
       
May 1, 2014 Fund Raiser      
       
05/01/14 Time Ten Cellars $970.86
 
Where are the invitations?  
 These are claimed to be EVENT EXPENSES and there are no other “EVENTS” without postage.  SEE BELOW.  10/15/14  Reilly Echols  $12,315
September 23 Fund Raiser      
       
09/23/14 Times Ten Cellars Food & Beverage $1,250.00
09/01/14 Order Desk $1,010.00
09/23/14 Whole Foods  $102.73
09/15/14 Reilly Echols Printing Inc $1,247.00
09/23/14 Go Diva Catering  $450.00
Total     $4059.73
       
Travel and Entertainment Partial List    
       
07/23/13 Go Diva Catering Entertainment $365.00
08/09/13 Capitol Grill Entertainment $428.67
Neiman Marcus Entertainment
       
01/20/14 Gallery Central Gifts $725.00
02/25/14 Gallery Central Office Décor $700.00
01/03/14 Stoney’s Gifts $129.90
03/18/14 La Fonda Hotel Santa Fe NM $975.31
02/17/14 Southwest Airlines $449.00
       
04/15/14 Courtyard Marriot Austin Texas $1,019.00
01/24/14 Marriot Horseshoe Bay $378.00
04/23/14 Univ of Texas Food & Beverage $145.00
05/05/14 Ace Rent a Car Car Rental $100.00
09/10/14  Omni Hotel Fort Worth  $645
07/03/04 Hyatt Lost Pines Central Texas Resort $581.00

 

 

D’Metria added this expense in her last eight day before the campaign financial report.  This odd posting leaves more questions that it provides answers.

May 2014 Fund Raiser Expenses

Where are the invitations for the  May 2014 Fund Raiser?  The food?  Was the October 15, 2014 “Event Expense” paid or payable to the “Order Desk” in the amount of $12,315 for the May 1, 2014 Fund Raiser?

Where are the invitations, the food and other expenses she typically billed for her other THREE FUND RAISERS for the May 2014 Fund Raiser.  Review this term’s Campaign Finance Report. Do you see them?

OUT OF THE BLUE – SUDDENLY HAVE MORE EXPENSE LISTED IN LAST QUARTER REPORT FOR 2014

It’s a Watch Party!!!
$2044

Order Desk:  $1,000*  Unclear if these are invitations for the Watch Party or some other event, possibly heretofore unmentioned?

Costco:  $96.00

Costco:  274.00

Hotel Venue:  $674.00

Link Here: http://www.dallascounty.org/department/countyclerk/courtorders/finrpts/Benson_D’Metria/Oct2014_Dec2014.pdf

Order-Desk-2014 D'Metria Benson

Order-Desk-2014 D’Metria Benson

D'Metria Benson Food Beverage Watch Party2

D’Metria Benson Food Beverage Watch Party2

Food-Beverage-Watch-Party

 

Watch Party Expense D'Metria Benson

Watch Party Expense D’Metria Benson

Prior Three Event Postage Expense Listed as Paid

D’Metria had already posted “POSTAGE” for event expense with the Order Desk for other fund raisers:

  • September 1, 2014:  $1010.00
  • October 1, 2014:  $1442.00
  • June 6, 2013, $1085.00

Event Postage Expense of $12K with Stated Date of October 15, 2014

Now in the last eight day before the election campaign finance filing suddenly there is an expense of $12,315 identified as “Event Expense.”  Link Here for the Campaign Finance Report filed by D’Metria.

Was there some new event?  Or was this expenditure in part for the heretofore unreported costs associated with the May 1, 2014, Fund Raising Event?

Why are there no other costs associated with an event of October 15, 2014, and why are there no costs other than Times Ten Cellars costs associated with the May 2014 event.

Expenses are to be posted when incurred ... D'Metria Appears to Have Missed this Posting.

Expenses are to be posted when incurred … D’Metria Appears to Have Missed this Posting.

Am I missing something here?  What event was this for?  $12,315. 29 is a sizeable amount of money for event expense postage.

D'Metria Benson Event Expense

D’Metria Benson Event Expense

 Democratic Party Mailing $25,485

D'Metria Benson Democartic Party Mailing $25,485 - October 2014

D’Metria Benson Democartic Party Mailing $25,485 – October 2014

D’METRIA BENSON WON BY LESS THAN ONE FIFTH OF ONE PERCENT: The lowest margin of victory of any candidate.

D’METRIA BENSON WON BY ONE FIFTH OF ONE PERCENT: This represents the LOWEST margin of victory for any candidate in Dallas County – local or statewide.

Bad judges inflict tremendous harm on multiple levels. D’Metria Benson is a bad judge. Her grasp exceeds the scope of Dallas County; her incompetence remains undisputed. Where are the endorsements? What attorney will attach their name and reputation to D’Metria Benson?

Dallas County Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with District Courts which makes a Dallas County Court more significant in this county, than in most. However, many law firms and attorneys report they simply will not file in County Court and take the risk of drawing D’Metria. This reluctance defeats the purpose of giving County Courts jurisdiction concurrent with District Courts for the purpose of alleviating the strain on District Courts.

D’Metria’s three Dallas County Bar Judicial Poll Evaluations have sunk lower with each successive evaluation.

• 2009: 81% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2011: 84% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2013: 86% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement

Does D’Metria have an adequate knowledge of the law?

• 2009: 82% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2011: 83% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2013: 86% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement

When questioned about D’Metria’s “impartiality” the most disturbing results are fleshed out, particularly when combined with D’Metria’s sixteen month, four fund raiser campaign contribution crusade of solicitations from attorneys who practice in her Court. Attorneys receiving multiple solicitations have reported feeling compelled to donate.

Is D’Metria impartial?

• 2009: 76% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2011: 74% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement
• 2013: 77% believe D’Metria Benson needs improvement

It appears those same law firms contributing their opinions for judicial evaluations do not believe in D’Metria’s competency, knowledge or impartiality. They do believe in protecting their self-interests. They win if D’Metria wins and they win if D’Metria loses. Everyone else suffers the consequence.

Baudelaire was right, “The sad thing is, not that we change but that we do not.” D’Metria’s getting worse, not better. She is incapable of change or improvement. Her hollow claims of completing a Judicial Training course serve to adorn her “Letter to Voters” but are not reflected in her ratings. D’Metria claims those voting in the Judicial Evaluation do not understand her and represent a narrow range of the Bar … and yet those are the same attorneys contributing to her campaign. Seems like they understand her just fine.

D’Metria Benson’s “Letter to Voters” claims to value education together with “fairness” and “impartiality.” In fact she references herself as either fair or impartial SEVEN times. By D’Metria’s own standards and in D’Metria’s own words, her opponent, Russell Roden, out flanks D’Metria on every level.

Roden’s Judicial Evaluation Poll results indicate:

• 93 percent believe Roden has an adequate knowledge of the law
• 91 percent approve of Roden’s overall performance
• 90 percent believe Roden is impartial

Roden attended Texas Tech University School of Law, obtaining his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree in 1988. While at Texas Tech, Russell served as the Articles Editor of the Texas Tech Law Review, was a member of the Order of the Coif, and graduated magna cum laude. Following law school, Russell was selected to serve a prestigious judicial clerkship with the Hon. W. Eugene Davis on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In summary – you decide.

D’Metria Benson – Favorite Deposition Quotes

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

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

LINKS TO DEPOSITION AND TO PLEADINGS

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

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

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

___________________

DOCKET LINKS

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

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

Original Application to Probate Will Transferred

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

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

_____________________

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF D’METRIA BENSON PRACTICING LAW WHILE A JUDGE

See: Texas Center for Legal Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________

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

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

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

_____________________

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

Issues Summary and Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Not that I’m aware of.

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

A. Not until this lawsuit.

Q. Not until this lawsuit?

A. Not until this lawsuit.

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

A. Yes.

Q. — and not even in 2011?

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

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

You were not aware of this lawsuit?

A. I’ve never seen Exhibit Two.

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

A. Not until this lawsuit was filed.

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

A. Uh-huh.

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

Do you recall contacting Judge Parsons?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. You don’t?

A. No. (P 35)

Q. Do you know Judge Parsons?

A. I’ve met Judge Parsons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. He inquired about the lawsuit.

A. He inquired about the lawsuit?

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

A. I don’t believe I was aware of it.

Q. Did you authorize it?

A. I don’t know that I did.

Q. Do you know that you didn’t?

A. I have no recollection. (P 36)

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

A. I might.

Q. On what basis?

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

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

A. No.

Q. Do you know where his primary office is?

A. No. (P 37)

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

_____________________________

Ooops!

Excerpts from Deposition of D’Metria Benson (Deposition)

P 6-7:

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

A. I assume so.

Q. And you don’t know?

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

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

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

D’Metria Benson and Common Law Rules for Property!

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

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

P 17 – 18

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

A. That’s what the deed says, yes.

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

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

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

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

Q. Based on what?

A. Common law.*

Q. And can you explain that to me?

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

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

A. No.

Q. — that we studied in school?

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

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

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

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

 

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

Texas Property Code:  Link Here

Sec. 5.041. FUTURE ESTATES. 

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

Sec. 5.042. ABOLITION OF COMMON-LAW RULES. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 5.043. REFORMATION OF INTERESTS VIOLATING RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES. 

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Conduct and the Removal of a Sitting Judge in Texas

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

D’Metria the Vedy, Vedy Bad Judge

A children’s book and cautionary tale.  Proceeds to the Salvation Army.

D’Metria Benson is out of touch with the struggles of the average family.

DMetria-Benson-Vedy-Bad-Judge

 

D'Metria the Vedy Vedy Bad Judge

Time to add more detailed drawing for a national release.

 

 

D'Metria Benson Vedy Bad Judge

D’Metria Benson Vedy Bad Judge

D'Metria Benson the Vedy, Vedy Bad Judge.  A Children's Tale.

D’Metria Benson the Vedy, Vedy Bad Judge. A Children’s Tale.

D'Metria the Vedy Vedy Bad Judge

 

The sun falls on the just and the unjust,

Silver tarnishes but it never rusts,

Attoney’s believed they had bought her trust,

The just in her Court were summarily  crushed.

 

BUY THE BOOK to see how the clever lawyer and her client outwit D’Metria for a happy ending! All proceeds to the Dallas Salvation Army.

Compliance with Campaign Finance Reporting Standards? Sometimes ….

DMetria=Benson=Campaign=Finance+report=no-date

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.

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

Revised July 28, 2014  Source:  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/forms/JCOH_ins.htm#SCHEDULE_F

D’Metria Benson Solicits Donations from Attorneys in her Court

DMetria_Benson_Give-early-give-often

D’Metria Benson Out of Touch

D'Metria Benson has no concept of the struggles of a normal family.

D’Metria Benson has no concept of the struggles of a normal family.

D’Metria Campaign Expenses

A family of four could have food for ONE YEAR and TWO MONTHS for the cost of two of her FOUR FUNDRAISERS.

Compliance with Campaign Finance Laws?

WHY BOTHER?

5. PAYEE NAME: Enter the full name of the person to whom the expenditure was made.

Note: If the expenditure was by credit card, enter the name of the vendor who sold you the goods or services, not the name of the credit card issuer.

Note: If you make an expenditure for goods or services to benefit another candidate, officeholder, or committee, enter the name of the vendor who sold you the goods or services. Do not enter the name of the person for whose benefit you made the expenditure. Include that information under Section 8, “Purpose of Expenditure.”  http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/forms/JCOH_ins.htm#SCHEDULE_F

ENTER THE NAME OF THE VENDOR NOT THE NAME OF THE CREDIT ISSUER –

NOT RELEVANT TO D’METRIA

THE LAW IS WHAT I SAY IT IS HAS FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS FOR D’METRIA

Travel-AmEx-2013

Payee Address?

TOO MUCH TROUBLE !

7. PAYEE ADDRESS: Enter the complete address of the person to whom the expenditure was made.

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

D’Metria Benson Out of Touch

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

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

 

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

 

Donor’s Law Firm Association?

IF CONVENIENT!

D’Metria Benson Campaign Contributions

D'Metria Benson Judicial Evaluation Poll and Campaign Contributions

D’Metria Benson Judicial Evaluation Poll and Campaign Contributions

D'Metria Benson Judicial Evaluation Poll and Campaign Contributions

D’Metria Benson Judicial Evaluation Poll and Campaign Contributions

 

The strongest donors to date appear to be:

The Law Offices of Van Shaw: $6,000, 2013 to 2014 and another $5K

May 24, 2013: $5000 and June 21, 2014: $1000.  Associate, Collen Myer for $5K.

CollenMyer

Haynes & Boone PAC together with individual Haynes & Boone attorneys:  $6,300, 2013 to 2014

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

Domingo Garcia

D'Metria Benson Campaign Contributions 2014
Domingo-Garcia-self

D’Metria Benson

Dallas Worst Judge

D'metria Benson Deposition

D’metria Benson Deposition

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

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

Defamation Clown Car – I KNOW! LET SOMEONE ELSE DEAL WITH THIS!!!

D'Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge CCL1

D'Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge

D’Metria Benson Dallas Worst Judge:  Is there anything or anyone that D’Metria Benson will NOT exploit?

Great attorney judiciary communication at work!

Great attorney judiciary communication at work!