DOCSLIB.ORG

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARIES March-April 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARIES
March-April 2021

Letter of Informal Adjustment to Lipsmeyer (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission March 19, 2021)
The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission informally adjusted a former part-time judge who, while a candidate in a run-off election for a new judicial position in 2020, signed a letter to attorneys asking for contributions to help offset campaign expenses.

Letter of Informal Adjustment to Ryan (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission

March 19, 2021) (https://www.jddc.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Informal- Adjustment-Jerry-Ryan.pdf)

The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission informally adjusted a former judge for signing, in 2018, an order in a guardianship case in which he had been attorney of record for several months in 2013 before the court granted his request to withdraw.

In the Matter Concerning Connolly, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance April 2, 2021)

(https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2021/04/Connolly_DO_Pub_Adm_4-2- 2021.pdf)

The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for (1) displaying improper demeanor toward 2 criminal defense attorneys who appeared by phone during an arraignment and (2) making an inappropriate remark about a jury verdict to a defendant who had been acquitted.
(1) In a criminal matter pending before the judge, Martin Lijtmaer represented Jorge
Ramirez, and Rachel Steinback represented co-defendant Felipe Ramirez. On March 20, 2020, the day after the governor announced the statewide stay-at-home order due to COVID-19,

Lijtmaer called the judge’s clerk to request permission to appear by telephone for the

arraignment scheduled that afternoon because he and Steinback were concerned about having been exposed to the virus and the possibility of spreading it at the courthouse. The judge spoke to Lijtmaer over the phone and said his clerk would call back to communicate his decision. Lijtmaer and Steinback attempted to find another attorney who could appear at the arraignment in their stead, but they were unable to do so. At approximately 2:00 p.m., the clerk told Lijtmaer that the judge would allow counsel to appear by telephone.
At the arraignment, Lijtmaer and Steinback appeared by telephone; their clients were in custody and appeared in person. After arraignment, Lijtmaer asked that his client, Jorge Ramirez, be released on his own recognizance, citing, among other reasons, health concerns

outlined in a recent letter in Lijtmaer’s possession. The following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: How am I going to see that letter, if you’re not in my courtroom?

LIJTMAER: Well --

THE COURT: How am I going to see that letter if you are not in my courtroom? I’m not

going to, am I?

  • LIJTMAER:
  • As an officer of the court –

THE COURT: All right. LIJTMAER:

-- I’d ask the court to --

THE COURT: Is there anything further? Is there anything further, sir? Anything further, sir?

  • LIJTMAER:
  • Yes, your honor. I have letters -- Yes. I have letters from both --

THE COURT: Which I cannot see, because you have not come to my courtroom? All right. LIJTMAER: THE COURT: Respectfully? You have not come to the courtroom. LIJTMAER: Your honor --

Your honor, respectfully, the reason I didn’t --
THE COURT: All right. So, with that, I’m going to set -- I am going to set -- I am

speaking, sir. I am speaking. We are setting the preliminary hearing at this time for April 13th, for each. Bail is going to be set for Mr. Ramirez, Jorge, for $150,000; and for Felipe at $100,000. If you have those letters, you can bring those in at the time.

Steinback requested that her client be released on his own recognizance. Before
Steinback finished explaining that her client was vulnerable to complications from COVID-19,

which he was more likely to contract if he remained in custody, the judge asked: “And how do you know this? And how do you know this?” Steinback responded that she had learned about her client’s medical history from his family. The judge replied: “I suggest you bring in that paperwork at the time of the preliminary hearing.” Steinback said that her client has a family to

support and a full-time job that has been deemed essential under the stay-at-home orders and that he would lose if he were not released from custody. The judge responded:

Okay. I’m going to stop you there. Because we’re done. All right. I am not releasing

either of these people, with these charges. There are multiple charges. If you wished to present this evidence, you should have been here or had someone represent you. . . . Bail for Jorge in the amount of $150,000, and for Felipe at $100,000.

In the judge’s response to the preliminary investigation letter, he acknowledged that he
“should not have demonstrated irritation or impatience with defense counsel” and that he “spoke too sharply” to them. He asked the Commission to “take into account the highly unusual circumstances present at that time:” the court had not yet implemented operations to

conduct matters remotely; it was not clear how long the governor’s stay-at-home order would be in effect; and there was no clear guidance about how to handle the attorneys’ request to appear telephonically at a criminal proceeding.
The Commission acknowledged that the circumstances were unusual and presented

challenges, but noted that “the unusual circumstances and challenges affected the defense attorneys as well as the court” and concluded that “the initial lack of clarity about how to

2

handle court proceedings during the public health crisis did not excuse or explain the judge’s mistreatment of the attorneys.” The Commission emphasized that there was “no evidence of

provocative conduct by counsel,” whom the judge had given permission to appear by telephone.

At his appearance before the Commission, the judge “claimed—for the first time—” that

he had spoken with Lijtmaer on the telephone twice and told him to send whatever information he had to present to the court before the hearing, but that he had not received anything. The judge told the Commission that, during the telephone arraignment, he did not mention his earlier instruction to Lijtmaer because of the relationship between the attorneys and their clients who were in his courtroom. The Commission noted that it does not consider new evidence at an appearance, absent certain circumstances that were not present, and found that the judge’s explanation for not questioning Litjmaer during the telephonic hearing was unpersuasive.
The Commission stated that the judge seemed sarcastic and impatient and interrupted

both Lijtmaer and Steinback while “the attorneys, in contrast, appear polite and respectful.” At his appearance before the Commission, the judge acknowledged that the transcript “looks bad,” but did not admit that he committed misconduct or display contrition, arguing instead that he had not treated the “attorneys any differently because they were not in the courtroom.”

(2) On August 20, 2018, a jury convicted Dalisha Jordan and another defendant but acquitted defendant Eugene Germany. After the jurors left the courtroom, the judge said to

Germany: “Let me tell you, you’ve been given a gift from God because there’s no question in my mind that you’re guilty of this crime. Now, with that, though -- well, I’ll tell you, chivalry is not dead. If you’d taken the deal, Ms. Jordan would have had that six year deal. She’s going to get a lot more time than that. So, you know, take that into consideration. All right. But you’ve been given a gift. What you do with it is your choice. Fair enough?” Germany responded, “Yeah.”

At his appearance before the Commission, the judge asserted that he thinks what he

said “was right” and “what [he] should have done” and that it was his “duty” and his “responsibility” as a judge to advise Germany that he had been “given a gift from God” so that “Germany would take advantage of opportunities he has been given.” However, the Commission found, the judge had disparaged “the jury’s determination that the defendant had

not been proven guilty. The jury system is an essential pillar of American democracy. The

judge’s role in a jury trial is to be neutral. Judge Connolly’s remark was likely to undermine public confidence in the independence of the jury and its important role in the justice system.” Further, it explained that “a judge does not have a duty to advise a criminal defendant that the

defendant has been given the gift of an acquittal. While a judge may encourage a defendant to make better choices and take advantage of opportunities in the future, the judge must not do

so at the expense of the jury and its verdict.” The Commission found that the judge’s remarks

to Germany were gratuitous, undignified, and improper.

The Commission considered the judge’s prior discipline to be a significant aggravating factor. In 2016, the Commission had publicly admonished the judge for “a course of conduct

reflecting embroilment with a criminal defense attorney and for setting multiple post-trial

hearings regarding possible contempt charges, which was an abuse of his authority.” In 2010,

3the Commission privately admonished him for using profanity during a judicial profile interview

and in chambers discussions with attorneys. The Commission also considered the judge’s

failure to fully appreciate his misconduct as an additional aggravating factor. In the Matter of Chase, Order (Colorado Supreme Court April 16, 2021)

(https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021 /21SA91.pdf)

Based on a stipulation and the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial
Discipline, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the resignation of a judge and publicly censured her for (1) using the N-word in a conversation with a Black staff member; (2) expressing her views about criminal justice, police brutality, race, and racial bias while wearing her robe in court staff work areas and on the bench; (3) using court staff for personal tasks; and (4) referring to a judicial colleague in derogatory terms.
(1) In late January or early February 2020, the judge attended a safe baby program with

a family court facilitator and the judge’s law clerk. The judge drove both court employees in

her car to and from the program. The judge is White; the family court facilitator is Black. On the way back from the program, the judge asked the family court facilitator why Black people can use the N-word but not White people, and whether it was different if the N-word is said with an “er” or an “a” at the end of the word. During the conversation, the judge used the full N-word a number of times. The family court facilitator was uncomfortable because she could not leave the car or the conversation. The facilitator was angry and hurt by the conversation.

She explained that the judge’s use of the full N-word was “like a stab through my heart each time.” The facilitator did not feel free to express her discomfort or emotions because she

feared retaliation by the judge.
The judge maintained that she did not intend any racial animus, but acknowledged that her statements violated the code of judicial conduct. The Commission concluded that,

“although not directed at any person, saying the N-word has a significant negative effect on the public’s confidence in integrity of and respect for the judiciary.”

(2) In early February 2020, the judge was wearing her robe on the bench during a break while 2 or 3 other people were in the courtroom. 2 employees in the courtroom were Black. When someone brought up watching the Super Bowl, the judge stated, from the bench, that she would be boycotting the Super Bowl because she objected to the NFL players who were kneeling during the National Anthem in protest of police brutality against Black people.
On the Monday after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in May 2020 and there were Black Lives Matter protests in Denver, 2 Black court employees were in the

judge’s courtroom. One of them asked the other if they had seen the George Floyd protests.

The judge, while wearing her robe and sitting on the bench, told the employees some of her opinions regarding racial justice issues and asked some questions about the Black Lives Matter movement. The employee tried to explain the Black Lives Matter movement, and the judge stated that she believes all lives matter. The judge also stated that the conduct of the police officers in the George Floyd matter should be investigated.
In early 2020, the judge directed her law clerk to do some legal research related to a

personal family legal issue that was unrelated to the judge’s official case load.

4
In August 2020, the judge had a medical episode at the courthouse. After courtroom deputies came to her aid, the judge declined an ambulance. She then asked a court employee to drive her to the emergency room. After arriving, the judge asked the court employee to stay with her at the hospital. The employee missed a half day of work to accommodate the judge.
Throughout 2020, the judge forwarded personal emails to her clerk and asked her clerk to edit or rewrite the emails so they sounded better before the judge sent them to the intended recipient.
The judge repeatedly discussed personal and family matters with staff and other employees in office work areas and as part of court business in an undignified and discourteous manner.
In the first half of 2020, the judge told her clerk that she was leaving briefly to meet with another judge. When she returned from the meeting and the clerk asked how it went, the

judge replied with a derogatory reference to the other judge, calling her a “f****** b****.”

In re Heath, Report of disposition (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission January 15, 2021)

Based on a consent agreement and the magistrate’s resignation and agreement not to

serve in judicial office again, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission disposed of complaints against a former chief magistrate judge; the judge had resigned while the Commission was investigating complaints that he had (1) inserted himself into the investigation of an acquittance that was unrelated to his position and used the prestige of his office to obtain information in that investigation; (2) improperly issued arrest warrants; and (3) displayed intemperate behavior on the bench.

In re Taliaferro, Report of disposition (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission January 20, 2021)

Based on a consent agreement and the magistrate’s resignation and agreement not to

serve in judicial office again, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission disposed of complaints against a former magistrate judge who had resigned while the Commission was investigating complaints that he had attempted to engage in an improper relationship with a female litigant who appeared before him in an eviction matter, exploited the prestige of his office to further his interest in her, and presided over a bond hearing in an unrelated matter involving her without disclosing the prior connection.

In re Wigington, Report of disposition (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission February 22, 2021)

Based on a consent agreement and the magistrate’s resignation and agreement not to

serve in judicial office again, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission disposed of complaints against a former chief magistrate judge and probate judge; the magistrate had resigned while the Commission was investigating complaints that he had misused a government issued financial transaction card to steal funds from the county and court. In January 2020, the judge had been arrested and charged with 6 counts of felony theft by taking, 3 counts of misuse

5of a government issued financial transaction card, and 1 count of violating the oath of office. In November 2020, he was indicted on 57 counts, including the offenses related to his previous arrest and other offenses discovered after further investigation.

In re Ruttle, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission April 7, 2021)

(https://kycourts.gov/Courts/JCC%20Actions%20Documents/2021agreedorderRuttle04072021. pdf)

Based on an agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 7 days without pay for (1) requiring defendants in criminal trials to file written demands for jury trials; (2) making comments to attorneys with the Department of Public Advocacy that were not patient, dignified, and courteous; and (3) in a proceeding with an unrepresented defendant, suggesting a plea agreement that could reasonably be perceived as coercive for the defendant. The order notes that, during a preliminary investigation of 2 complaints, the Commission had received information concerning proceedings on 2 days in June 2020, 2 days in

July, and 2 weeks and 1 day in August. In mitigation, the Commission considered “the

circumstances and impact caused by the Covid-19 pandemic” and the judge’s cooperation. In the Matter of Nickerson, 248 A.3d 298 (Maryland 2021)
Granting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities based on the

judge’s admissions

(https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/import/cjd/pdfs/cjd20180332019013nicker

sonfindingsoffact.pdf), the Maryland Court of Appeals removed a judge from office for (1) her conviction on charges of driving while impaired by alcohol, exceeding posted maximum speed limit, negligent driving, reckless driving, and throwing, dumping, discharging, or depositing refuse on highway; (2) failing to be truthful and cooperative during the traffic stop, injecting her

position as a judge as soon as she was stopped by the officer, and mentioning the officer’s

superior to try to influence the officer not to charge her or to consult with his supervisor before charging her; and (3) failing to comply with the terms of a conditional diversion agreement with the Commission; failing to comply with the conditions of a reprimand by the Commission; and failing to cooperate with the investigative counsel and the Commission. The judge is not an attorney. She had been barred from presenting fact witnesses or testimony at the hearing because she failed to respond to written discovery. She did not present any character witnesses.

(1) On March 9, 2018, Sergeant Harry Kettner of the county sheriff’s office stopped the

judge after determining she was speeding using his in-car radar unit and observing that she hit a cone when turning the corner. She was charged with driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, exceeding the posted maximum speed limit (43 in a posted 30 mph zone), exceeding the posted maximum speed limit (31 in a posted 25 mph zone), negligent driving, reckless driving, and throwing, dumping, discharging, or depositing refuse on a highway.
Following a trial, the judge was acquitted of driving under the influence but convicted of the other charges and placed on probation.

6

(2) When Kettner approached the judge’s vehicle, he observed that her eyes were glassy

and bloodshot and her actions were slow and delayed. Kettner smelled alcohol emanating from her vehicle and observed a clear cup with a clear liquid and a straw in the center console.

Kettner asked, “Is there anything in that cup in the center console?” The judge’s response was “No. I mean, it’s club soda.” Kettner later asked the judge, “I mean, you -- and there’s nothing in that club soda?” The judge again replied “No.” Kettner tested the substance in the cup and

determined that it had alcohol in it. The judge later confirmed that the cup contained vodka.
The judge told Kettner that she had just left work at her second job as a hostess at a restaurant. Kettner then asked the judge to exit her vehicle. She complied after completing a

phone call and after Kettner asked a second time. The judge stated to him, “Can I tell you something else? I’m a judge of the Orphans’ Court. So please. I’m serious.” The judge also advised Kettner that she had called an individual whom she referred to as “Kirby” and told Kirby that she was pulled over by Kettner. Lieutenant Kirby is Sergeant Kettner’s superior.

Recommended publications
  • Campaigns Shift Focus to Turnout on Tuesday by Robert Downen and Alejandro Serrano STAFF WRITERS Shared from the 11/1/2020 Houston Chronicle Eedition

    Campaigns Shift Focus to Turnout on Tuesday by Robert Downen and Alejandro Serrano STAFF WRITERS Shared from the 11/1/2020 Houston Chronicle Eedition

    Campaigns shift focus to turnout on Tuesday By Robert Downen and Alejandro Serrano STAFF WRITERS Shared from the 11/1/2020 Houston Chronicle eEdition Left: Campaign volunteers dance and wave at cars as Rep. Lizzie Fletcher speaks with a member of the community at a Halloween drive-thru giveaway in Cypress. Mark Mulligan / Staff photographer. ​ Right: Republican congressional challenger Wesley Hunt speaks with volunteers Saturday before they block walk from the campaign’s west Houston headquarters. Mark Mulligan / Staff photographer. ​ On the final Saturday before Election Day, U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher corralled campaign volunteers ahead of one of their final text- and phone-banking sessions. The freshman Democrat’s campaign has relied heavily on those efforts amid the coronavirus pandemic, and campaign officials said Saturday that they’d sent more than a half-million texts and placed the same number of calls to potential voters. Across town, Republican challenger Wesley Hunt briefly spoke to about 30 volunteers before they headed out to homes in the surrounding neighborhood in search of voters. “We want everybody to turn out,” the former Army pilot said. “I want as many people to exercise their constitutional right to go vote, primarily because people died for it.” A day after Texas closed out an early-voting period that saw record turnout, campaigns and nonpartisan groups spent Saturday making among their final cases to potential or undecided voters in southeast Texas, hoping that last-minute get-out-the-vote efforts would bring out supporters on Election Day despite ongoing concerns about the risk of COVID-19.
  • Trans Voices Transgender Advocates and Allies Gathered in Austin This Week to Battle Dan Patrick’S Bathroom Bill Page 8

    Trans Voices Transgender Advocates and Allies Gathered in Austin This Week to Battle Dan Patrick’S Bathroom Bill Page 8

    Trans Voices Transgender advocates and allies gathered in Austin this week to battle Dan Patrick’s bathroom bill Page 8 Put Down That If it’s not Razor!! one thing... Serving the 03.10.17 | Volume 33 | Issue 44 LGBT it’s your Mother. Community toc u u for 3 years! Individuals Couples u Groups u LPC Supervision 9 Call today for your headlines FREE consultation 682-593-1442 █ TEXAS NEWS htgtelectrolysis.com 4140 Lemmon Avenue Studio 38, Dallas, TX 8 SB 6 passes out of committee 9 Trans activist lobbies in Austin Property for Sale in the 10 Clark speaks on sexism, celebrity Gayborhood! █ LIFE+STYLE 14 Vanessa Carlton talks bi Pride 10 16 T3 stages Passing Strange 18 Disney gays up Beauty ... kind of 652 Bizerte Avenue • $345,000 Mid-Century ranch with modern aspects in highly desirable Wynnewood North, █ ON THE COVER 5-minutes to Bishop Arts! Great floor plan, features 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, + den. Trans girl Libby Gonzalez stand with Open Sunday 2-4pm, Come see us! Jeff Neal, ABR her father Frank during a rally for Distinctive Properties | Distinctive Service CALL TODAY! | Sliding Scale Available trans rights Monday in Austin. (Eric 214-521-1278 | 3625 N. Hall St., #1250 214-931-2609 Located in the heart of our community Gay/Associated Press) stonewall-inc.com 14 departments 6 The Gay Agenda 21 Best Bets 8 News 24 Ask Howard 12 Community Voices 26 Scene 14 Life+Style 28 Marketplace 03.10.17 █ dallasvoice 3 HEALTH AND SEX BELONG TOGETHER Peter A. Schulte instant DallasVoice.com/Category/Instant-Tea Street’s Fine ChickenTEA to open Nelson to support SB 6 “to keep men out of Attorney at Law women’s restrooms.” He said the calls were second, fast-casual location going out under the guise of being from CRTX- Former Dallas County Prosecutor, Police Officer this summer News.com, “a Brietbart-esque bullshit website.” Street’s Fine Chicken, the Street Family spot Hotze is listed as the website’s publisher.
  • Hollands Thesis Edited Version

    Hollands Thesis Edited Version

    Work and Sexuality in the Sunbelt: Homophobic workplace discrimination in the US South and Southwest, 1970 to the present Joshua Hollands PhD, Institute of the Americas, University College London Supervisors: Jonathan Bell and Nick Witham 1! I, Joshua Hollands, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. _________________________ 2! Abstract In recent years, following the achievement of marriage equality in federal United States law, employment rights have become a key battleground for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists. Indeed, most southern states provide no protection for sexual minorities against being fired at work. As such, many workers across the South and Southwest can be married to someone of the same sex on a Sunday but be legally fired on a Monday for being gay. This thesis uses six case studies to understand how this situation of uneven workplace protections came into being. In doing so it focuses upon the Sunbelt, an area that has been economically and politically significant over the past half-century. I am concerned with how LGBT activist strategies for equal protections and workplace rights in the South have diverged from the national trajectory due to the limited power of unions and the ascendency of Christian morality that has reshaped free-market politics in the region. Chapters focused on individual organisations such as Apple Computer, Cracker Barrel, Duke University and ExxonMobil shed light on mainstream LGBT strategies for equality within corporations, as well as the extent to which victories at these companies impacted wider rights for sexual minorities in southern cities.
  • In the Supreme Court of Texas

    In the Supreme Court of Texas

    FILED 20-0249 3/30/2020 12:00 AM tex-41995472 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK NO. ______________ In the Supreme Court of Texas IN RE STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., HOTZE HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER, PASTOR JUAN BUSTAMANTE, CITY ON A HILL CHURCH, PASTOR GEORGE GARCIA, POWER OF LOVE CHURCH, AND PASTOR DAVID VALDEZ, WORLD FAITH CENTER OF HOUSTON CHURCH, Relators, Original Proceeding Pursuant to Texas Constitution art. V, §3 EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS JARED WOODFILL Woodfill Law Firm, P.C. State Bar No. 00788715 3 Riverway, Ste. 750 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 751-3080 (Telephone) (713) 751-3058 (Facsimile) [email protected] Counsel for Relators i IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 1. Relators Steven Hotze, MD 20214 Braidwood Drive Katy, Texas 77450 (Harris County) Pastor Juan Bustamante City on a Hill Church 3902 Cochran Street Houston, Texas 77009 Pastor George Garcia The Power of Love Church 17431 Barnwood Road Houston, Texas 77090 Pastor David Valdez World of Faith Center of Houston, Inc. 8117 East North Belt Humble, Texas 77396 Lawyer for Relators: Jared R. Woodfill State Bar No. 00788715 3 Riverway, Ste. 750 Houston, Texas 77056 Tel: (713) 751-3080 Fax: (713) 751-3058 [email protected] 2. Respondent Honorable Lina Hildago Harris County Judge 1001 Preston, Suite 911 Houston, Texas 77002 ii Court Phone: (713) 274-7000 Fax Number: (713) 755-8379 Lawyer for Respondent: Vince Ryan State Bar No. 17489500 1019 Congress, 15th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 755-5101 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .....................................................................................................
  • In the Supreme Court of Texas ______

    In the Supreme Court of Texas ______

    No. 20-0430 ___________________________________________________ In the Supreme Court of Texas ___________________________________________________ In re Steven Hotze, M.D., et al., Relators ___________________________________________________ Original Proceeding ___________________________________________________ Amicus Curiae Brief of James C. Harrington ___________________________________________________ Charles “Chad” Baruch Corinna Chandler Texas Bar Number 01864300 Texas Bar Number 24061272 [email protected] [email protected] Randy Johnston Eliot D. Shavin Texas Bar Number 10834400 Texas Bar Number 18138200 [email protected] [email protected] Johnston Tobey Baruch, P.C. Chandler & Shavin, PLLC 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 Dallas, Texas 75251 Dallas, Texas 75251 Telephone: (214) 741-6260 Telephone: (972) 529-5554 Facsimile: (214) 741-6248 Facsimile: (972) 529-1444 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Supplemental Identity of Parties and Counsel Amicus Curiae James C. Harrington Chad Baruch Corinna Chandler Randy Johnston Eliot D. Shavin Johnston Tobey Baruch, P.C. Chandler & Shavin, PLLC 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880 Dallas, Texas 75251 Dallas, Texas 75251 i Table of Contents Supplemental Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................ i Table of Contents .......................................................................................... ii Index of Authorities ....................................................................................
  • Cause No. 2020-22609 Steven Hotze, M.D., § in the District

    Cause No. 2020-22609 Steven Hotze, M.D., § in the District

    CAUSE NO. 2020-22609 STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Hotze Health & Wellness Center, § THOMAS DELAY, § PASTOR JUAN BUSTAMANTE, § City on a Hill Church, § PASTOR GEORGE GARCIA, § Power of Love Church, § PASTOR DAVID VALDEZ, § World Faith Center of Houston § Church, and § 281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT PASTOR JOHN GREINER, § Glorious Way Church, § Plaintiffs, § v. § § LINA HIDALGO, in her official § capacity as Harris County Judge, and § HARRIS COUNTY, § Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Brief of Amicus Curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Support of Defendants PATRICK GRUBEL Attorney in Charge State Bar No. 24106034 [email protected] KENNETH D. UPTON, JR. State Bar No. 00797972 [email protected] Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 (phone) (202) 466-3353 (fax) Counsel for Amicus Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... ii Identity and Interests of Amicus Curiae ...................................................................... 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument ..................................................................... 1 Argument and Authorities ............................................................................................ 3 I. The Order Does Not Violate The Texas Constitution’s Guarantee of Religious Freedom. ...............................................................................................
  • In Re Hotze, No

    In Re Hotze, No

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ NO. 20-0739 ════════════ IN RE STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., HON. ALLEN WEST, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS, HON. SID MILLER, HON. MARK HENRY, HON. CHARLES PERRY, HON. PAT FALLON, HON. BILL ZEDLER, HON. CECIL BELL, JR., HON. STEVE TOTH, HON. DAN FLYNN, HON. MATT RINALDI, HON. RICK GREEN, HON. MOLLY WHITE, HARRIS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY/HON. KEITH NIELSEN, HON. BRYAN SLATON, HON. ROBIN ARMSTRONG, M.D., JIM GRAHAM, HON. CATHIE ADAMS, HON. JOANN FLEMING, JULIE MCCARTY, SHARON HEMPHILL, AND AL HARTMAN, RELATORS ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICE GUZMAN, JUSTICE LEHRMANN, JUSTICE BOYD, JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, JUSTICE BUSBY, and JUSTICE BLAND joined. JUSTICE BLACKLOCK filed a concurring opinion, in which JUSTICE BUSBY joined except as to part I.C. JUSTICE DEVINE filed a dissenting opinion. Governor Abbott issued a proclamation on March 13, 2020,1 certifying under the Texas Disaster Act of 19752 (“the Act”) that the novel coronavirus COVID-19 poses an imminent threat 1 All dates referred to are in 2020. 2 TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 418.001–.261. of disaster in all Texas counties.3 On July 27, the Governor issued another proclamation,4 again citing the Act, suspending two provisions of the Texas Election Code as they relate to the general election on November 3. One provision states that “early voting by personal appearance begins on the 17th day before
  • Parker, Annise (B

    Parker, Annise (B

    Parker, Annise (b. 1956) by Linda Rapp Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2011 glbtq, Inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com An official portrait of Houston, Texas Mayor In 2009, after a dozen years in elective office in Houston, Texas, Annise Parker won Annise Parker. election to the mayoralty of the fourth-largest city in the United States, becoming the first open lesbian to lead a major American city. Since then, she has been re-elected twice and has earned the respect of even conservative Republicans for her competence and dedication. A native of Houston, born May 17, 1956, Parker was raised in the Spring Branch community of Houston. Her mother was a bookkeeper and her father worked for the Red Cross. His job took the family to the U. S. Army Base in Mannheim, Germany for a two-year stay when Annise was 15. After graduating from high school in South Carolina in 1974, she returned to Houston to attend Rice University on a National Merit Scholarship, and the city has been her home ever since. Following her graduation from college with a degree in anthropology and sociology in 1978, she began a career doing economic modeling for energy companies. She worked for 18 years for Mosbacher Energy. Out since her high school days, Parker also became involved in the quest for glbtq rights. She was instrumental in establishing a glbtq student organization at Rice and subsequently joined gay and lesbian groups in the community. She was among the participants in the city's first Pride parade in 1979.
  • In the Supreme Court of Texas

    In the Supreme Court of Texas

    FILED 20-0863 10/27/2020 10:48 PM tex-47581770 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK NO. _________ In the Supreme Court of Texas IN RE STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., WENDELL CHAMPION, HON. STEVE TOTH, AND SHARON HEMPHILL, Relators, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Harris County Clerk PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS JARED WOODFILL Woodfill Law Firm, P.C. State Bar No. 00788715 3 Riverway, Ste. 750 Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 751-3080 (Telephone) (713) 751-3058 (Facsimile) [email protected] Counsel for Relators i Identity of Parties and Counsel 1. Relators Steven F. Hotze, MD Katy, Texas 77450 (Harris County) Dr. Hotze is a registered voter in Harris County and will be voting in the general election. Hon. Steve Toth Conroe, Texas 77384. State Representative Toth is a member of the Texas House of Representatives, representing District 15. Representative Toth is on the November 3, 2020 ballot. Wendell Champion Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. Champion is the Republican nominee for Texas’ 18th Congressional District, Texas. He is on the ballot in the general election on November 3, 2020. Sharon Hemphill . Spring, Texas 77379 Sharon Hemphill is a registered voter in Harris County. Sharon Hemphill is the Republican nominee for judge of the Texas 80th District Court, Harris County, Texas. She is on the ballot in the general election on November 3, 2020. She advanced from the Republican primary on March 3, 2020. Lawyer for Relators: Jared R. Woodfill ii State Bar No. 00788715 3 Riverway, Ste. 750 Houston, Texas 77056 Tel: (713) 751-3080 Fax: (713) 751-3058 [email protected] 2.
  • Donald Trump

    Donald Trump

    PUBLISHED BY SPRING 2017 // ISSUE 162 THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER THETHE YEARYEAR ININ HATEHATE ANDAND EXTREMISMEXTREMISM AFTER HALF A CENTURY, THE RADICAL RIGHT ENTERS THE MAINSTREAM PLUS HATE GROUP MAP & LISTING INSIDE EDITORIAL Donald Trump, ‘Fake News’ and the Rise of White Nationalism BY MARK POTOK Last December, an armed, 28-year-old North Carolina that 80% of white murder victims in America are killed man stormed into a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor called by black people. He described Mexican immigrants as Comet Ping-Pong, bent on investigating rapists and drug dealers, said Muslims should be banned the stories he’d heard about it being part of from the country, and seemed to encourage violence by a child sex-slavery ring closely tied to the his supporters against black protesters. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. During the campaign, Trump only weakly disavowed Before it was over, Edgar Welch had fired a the white supremacists who were electrified by his shot that harmed no one, but terrified res- candidacy. And once elected, he selected appointees taurant customers and staff alike. known for their hardline anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim and “The intel on this wasn’t 100%,” Welch anti-immigrant ideas. Chief among them was Breitbart sheepishly conceded later. News executive Stephen Bannon, a partisan of right- That may have been the understatement of the year. wing populism who many observers see as having pro- The “intel” on what came to be called “Pizzagate” moted white nationalism. was utterly and completely false. It soon transpired After half a century of being pushed to the very mar- that Welch had been taken in by a “documentary” he gins of American society, the radical right has entered watched on the Infowars site of Alex Jones, America’s the political mainstream in a way not even imagined most unhinged conspiracist and a man who sees the fed- since the 1968 run for the presidency by segregation- eral government as being the author of almost every ter- ist George Wallace.
  • AUSTIN Early Voting Targeted

    AUSTIN Early Voting Targeted

    AUSTINEarly voting targeted"/> AUSTINEarly voting targeted" /> AUSTINEarly voting targeted" /> AUSTIN Early voting targeted Conservative group sues Abbott over six-day extension Byhe ALEXordered BRISENO two months ago Austin Bureau [email protected] AUSTIN -- A group of conservatives has filed a lawsuit to prevent the six additional days of early voting that Gov. Greg Abbott ordered nearly two months ago. "This draconian order is contrary to the Texas spirit and invades the liberties the people of Texas protected in the constitution," the lawsuit filed Thursday stated. "If the courts allow this invasion of liberty, today's circumstances will set a precedent for the future, forever weakening the protections Texans sacrificed to protect." This is another suit filed by Steven Hotze, who has heavily criticized and frequently sued Abbott over his decisions in response to COVID-19. In April, Hotze sued Abbott following his stay-at-home order. Last month, he filed two suits, one over Texas' contact tracing program, the other over Abbott's mask mandate. Hotze is winless so far in all of his attempts at overturning Abbott's COVID-19 orders. Hotze argues that this could be just the beginning of governors making changes to the Texas Election Code. "Will it be a little easier next time for a governor to unilaterally make sweeping changes to the Texas Election Code, force people to wear certain items or not act in government-disapproved activities on pain of criminal sanctions?" the lawsuit said. Aside from Hotze, other notable plaintiffs include Bryan Slaton, the Republican nominee for Texas House District 2, and Sharon Hemphill, who is running for district judge in Harris County.
  • Texas' Christian Nationalists Respond to COVID-19

    Texas' Christian Nationalists Respond to COVID-19

    TEXAS’ CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS RESPOND TO COVID-19: MARCH THROUGH JULY 2020 David R. Brockman, Ph.D. Nonresident Scholar, Religion and Public Policy January 2021 © 2021 by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, papers are reviewed by outside experts before they are released. However, the research and views expressed in this paper are those of the individual researcher(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baker Institute. David R. Brockman, Ph.D. “Texas’ Christian Nationalists Respond to COVID-19: March through July 2020” https://doi.org/10.25613/q0td-0989 Texas’ Christian Nationalists Respond to COVID-19: March through July 2020 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has presented governments at all levels in the U.S. with perhaps their most severe public policy crisis other than wartime. January 2020 saw the first known U.S. case of COVID-19; the first known death from the disease occurred the following month.1 By November 10, over 10 million Americans had contracted the disease and more than 237,000 had died—a death total far exceeding battle deaths from World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined;2 just over 18,000 of these COVID-19 fatalities were Texans.3 Across the nation, businesses closed, unemployment surged past 14%, and the gross domestic product plunged by an annual rate of nearly 33% in a single quarter.4 As if all this were not bad enough, the disease and the often-disorganized government response to it served to further roil an already polarized populace.