This David v. Goliath thing isn’t going so bad for CLOUT.
Ed Hendee’s organization, which sued the State for violation of legal spending limits, won another round today when The Supreme Court of Texas rejected the Defendants’ efforts to stay - and thus further delay - all attempts by CLOUT to gather information during the State’s appeal on jurisictional grounds. The upshot is that document discovery - and, more deliciously, sworn depositions - may now go forward in the trial court.
Just three days ago, CLOUT’s lawyers Gary Polland and David Rogers persuaded Austin’s Third Court of Appeals to overrule the trial judge - which had agreed to stay all proceedings as the appeal wore on. In response to the appeals court’s ruling, the Dewhurst Defendants’ legion of lawyers filed an emergency motion (a “petition for writ of mandamus”) to the Supreme Court, asking it to order the court of appeals to essentially reverse itself. The Supreme Court issued its one-sentence order that the petition “IS DENIED.”
Trusty LST sources hope that the deposition of Legislative Budget Board Director O’Brien will proceed in the next few weeks. CLOUT is anticipating Mssrs Dewhurst and Craddick will move to quash their depositions on the claims of lack of knowledge on how the cap is calculated, and CLOUT is preparing for such motions. CLOUT also has outstanding document requests, which should be answered in the next 30 days, to a number of contractors involved in the budget estimate process.
CLOUT may even seek to move forward with a hearing on its request for a temprorary injunction to halt state spending until October.
MORE TO COME . . . . . .
UPDATE:
As CLOUT pointed out to the Supreme Court, this case has been on file for 400 days without so much as a shred of discovery to date. Why? Because of numerous procedural motions and appeals by the State to delay or avoid addressing the case on the merits.
A brief refresher as to the case history:
- The suit was filed on June 14, 2006. Defendants moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, and the motion was granted by a visiting judge.
- CLOUT appealed the dismissal, with arguments held in the Third Court of Appeals at Austin on March 7 of this year.
- On April 17, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The State moved for reconsideration.
- On May 25, the court of appeals again affirmed CLOUT’s right to proceed with the suit.
- The State then moved for review by the state Supreme Court. That Court denied the petition for review on July 10.
- CLOUT then filed a new petition in the trial court to add a request for injunctive relief.
- The State again filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was this time denied by a different visiting judge on August 14.
- Defendants promptly filed their notice of appeal and “Notice of Automatic Stay” purporting to invoke statutory provisions allowing such a stay in certain circumstances.
- On August 21, CLOUT filed an objection to the notice of automatic stay, which was denied by a sitting Travis County Judge.
- CLOUT filed a petition for writ of mandamus, a proceeding which, in essense, requests the appeals court to order the lower court to change its ruling on the stay issue.
- On August 27, the Third Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ (which, in effect, tells the trial court to change its ruling or a formal order will issue from the appellate court), holding that the statutory stay relied upon by the State did not apply in this case.
- The next day, the State filed their own Petition for Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief.
- On August 30, the Supreme Court denied the State’s petition.
The maneuvering by the State was based on the argument that, since CLOUT amended its petition to seek an injunction, it had raised a new cause of action and, thus, the State was entitled to a stay of proceedings under the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which provides for such a stay if the State is able to raise certain defenses to the “new cause of action.”
It its briefing before the Supreme Court, the State predicted dire consequences if CLOUT were to prevail in this suit, including claims that “funds to prisons, state hospitals, the courts, schools - every staste program imaginable - would be forced to shut down.”
As CLOUT responded in its own brief: “They have got to be kidding this honorable court.” CLOUT pointed out that it was not attempting to tell the state what it may fund, but only asking that the state Constitution be followed in determining how much to spend and how much to tax. “Surely,” CLOUT wrote, “this Court does not consider such a limited proposition a harbinger of Armageddon.”
As to the stay, CLOUT pointed out that its amended pleading did not raise a new cause of action, but merely sought a new remedy, which was not one of the statutory bases for a stay of all proceedings in the trial court.
This argument prevailed in the Third Court of Appeals, which issued the two-paragraph opinion cited above, and, obviously, in the Supreme Court, which denied the State’s petition without comment.
We hope that we can now be reporting to you on substantive proceedings in the trial court rather than continued procedural wrangling and further delays. We will keep you posted on significant developments and bring you more detailed discussion of the actual claims and defenses at the heart of the suit.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
69 Responses to “FLASH: CLOUT Confounds State Again”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
This is wonderful news! Let the depositions begin!
Of course, EPJ will blow in here and say CLOUT is still wrong because he is right, and that’s just the way it is…
Outstanding!
Please keep this one updated.
Hooray and Hallelujah - they had it come to umm - Goody Goody for you Goody for Goody me - and I hope their satified etc.
I would be interested in Owen’s (or any other attorney’s) take on this. Seems to me that if a Texan citizen does not have standing to sue under the Texas constitution, then who does? No wonder CLOUT won. Seems pretty open and shut to me. Congratulations to Edd and his legal team. Oh, a RickG, people lie in their depositions. What is funny is catching them when you actually put them on the stand at trial! Ha! If both testimonies don’t match up, watch out! P.e.r.j.u.r.y?
#2 Then you just say:
Your conversation has grown tiresome. Now is the time on Sprockets ven ve dance!
Hopefully there WILL be justice served. Thank you Mr. Hendee for speaking up for us little people! If lies are caught, I hope there will be charges filed against them.
Yes, Neo, I know a little about depositions, I’ve taken a few thousand of them.
Government that operates in the full view of the public operates the best.
Simple
RickG
Sorry, I didn’t mean any disrespect and I hope there was none taken.
RickG
My purpose in my #5 was to show laymen that people sometimes lie in their depositions because they don’t think their deposition testimony carries the same weight as their court testimony. Then, when they get in Court, they rethink (?)their deposition testimony or decide to tell the truth. That was the point I was making. If you do not agree with me, then so state it for all to see and not just make a statement that you have done thousands of depositions.
Neo
No offense taken. I am really hard to offend
And you are right. A lot of people don’t take depos too seriously - after all, there’s no judge or jury in the room. And, as you point out, there is nothing better than asking a question at trial and getting an answer 180 degrees from deposition testimony. Not because they don’t remember, but because some people can’t keep their lies straight. It’s too bad the oath is optional for some.
Friends?
(If this was a double post, sorry.)
Thanks Rick! Of course, friends. Just sharing experience from the ranks. 30+ years legal experience. I’ve seen a lot, like I’m sure you have! I’ve sat in depositions, summarized those depositions, gone to trial and listened to those same witnesses. You don’t have to have a law degree to know that they lie. Funny thing is, the truth is always the same. Nothing about the truth changes. But a lie — yeah, that can change!
Right on point Neo.
It is extremely comforting to see this bit of the people vs. government still operating as it should.
Now if we can only get a lasso on Jorge and Pecos Perry.
Yea, forward march. Congratulations to Edd and his legal team on their steadfast pursuit of making sure things get done in accordance with the Texas Constitution.
By the way, has Dr. Ron Paul chimed in with an amicus brief?
RickG
Did you ask Edd what he wants as a remedy?
What is the remedy of the Clout Suit?
Where are the taxpayers going to get their tax relief?
Please point that out - who is going to decide - the legislature or the courts how Texas spends its money?
Its really really going to be difficult to explain in a legal concept the concept of the surplus how there can be a surplus if the LBB is overestimating growth.
#17 - The remedies are a court finding on the illegality of the way the LBB is currently estimating growth for the spending cap, plus a ruling requiring the state to cut spending in compliance with the cap.
Exactly what spending gets cut to bring things into compliance is entirely at the discretion of the legislature. The court only rules on the illegality of the current spending level. Presumably that would mean a special session to decide where to trim.
Phil
Nice dodge, the cap has nothing to do with the state estimating thhe state does not have a property tax
Going back to the lawsuit and CLouts mission
Where is this suit going to benefit the taxpayers?
I missed it enlighten me
And do we bring back the legislature and government officials from 2005 who enacted it or do we reverse the spending for the last two years or do we watch a circus unfold?
Asking liberals in Austin to throw out a conservative on conservative lawsuit and heralding that as a victory for the taxpayers as more spending is needed to answer the lawsuit is confusing to me
So again the question is what again is the purpose of the suit?
Where are the property tax cuts going to enter into this lawsuit?
Craddick, Dewnothing, and EPJ squirming like worms on a hot sidewalk; this is epic!
Way to go Edd and CLOUT; power to the people!
PBF
So where’s the tax relief?
#19 - No dodge at all, though you do seem to be very confused/uninformed about the state of Texas’ budget process. The LBB calculates and sets the spending cap based upon a projected growth rate for personal income in the state - an estimated figure. That estimate is selected by the LBB membership. The CLOUT suit contends that the selection process they use is statistically flawed and unconstitutional.
Who, other than you, Eric, ever said the suit had to bring about tax relief?
That’s entirely the legislature’s discretion. The lawsuit never even remotely suggests otherwise, your self delusions and imagined letters to the Houston Chronicle notwithstanding.
Case law seems to suggest the suit would impact the unspent remainder of the budget that was passed for the 2006-2007 biennium. There are still a couple months left in that budget, so it’s however many millions of dollars that happens to be. The probable scenario would be the court freezing the unspent funds, then the legislature is called in to fix the budget.
You’re confused about a lot of things, Eric. But that’s nothing new. Today’s ruling was by the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court. Last week’s ruling was by a Republican-majority panel on the 3rd Court of Appeals. That would seem to contradict your previous attribution of court action in this case to “Austin liberals.”
Phil
The preiding Panel was 2 Republicans, one who is a known liberal and one conservative
The conservative yoted yes the other two liberal voted to overturn
Second
As we have had these converations before
Where is the tax relief for the homeowners
The funds for clout were to get taxpayer relief that was then impetus of the fund raising drive and the purpose of CLout
I just would like the explanation of where the tax relief is going to come to the homeowners?
Phil
Clout is Citizens for lowering our unfair taxes
where is the tax relief?
BL
Why are you opposed to the system running its course?
Hey Eric: Well, it’s obvious by now to me that tax relief by our so-called ‘leaders’ won’t happen until they are forced to do so.
But I have a question for you: why are you so opposed to our state governmnet working within the confines of it’s authority?
And why are you and others like you so threatened by participation in the government, especially when it is derelict in the performance of it’s duties, by the very people who fund it’s existence?
Who was it that said “Never argue with a fool. Someone watching might not know the difference”?
Or maybe it was “Never argue with a fool - people may not be able to tell you apart.”. I’m not sure.
Maltboy!
No argument here, merely replying to the question from our resident troll.
Part of having a discussion……kinda of what this thing venue is for, as I understand.
RickG
The system was never intended for this a single citizen, suing an entire state system for LAWFULLY executing its duties
Its obvious and Mr Hendee knows this and is fully aware that Texas spending is legal and has been approved and has been within the same system for decades
I don’t think our elected officials should have their personal freedoms, their personal finances challenged by these -nothing more than harassment - lawsuits
Even if Mr Hendee is successful in the end the legislature and the administration will not enact a 5% to 10% cut, they will find a new legal way to continue the states business
And in the end, the taxpayers, who need relief, are not going to get any and like what Romney did in Mass. when he cut spending and assistance to local governments - the local governments raised the tax burdens of the homeowners.
In short a lawsuit against a government has a very short lived effect, change Dewhurst to unemployed will have a great affect.
Start campaigning, not complaining
33.
So far the courts have disagreed with you.
Harassment? If that’s what it is, the case would have been tossed. But that’s not what it is.
Oh really? And who would that be, Eric?
I know you like to fabricate votes, but this copy of their ruling bears the names of all three justices and contains no indication of a dissent:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=16188
Actually, Eric, CLOUT’s fundraising effort for the lawsuit has indicated its purpose in this suit from the very beginning. Furthermore, the courts have recognized Edd Hendee’s status as a taxpayer as the entire basis of his standing to sue, so in addition to spending the case is about taxpayer rights by definition…and that would place it in the purview of a taxpayer advocacy group such as CLOUT.
That’s an innovative fabrication for the uninformed, Eric, but about 100 years of Texas case law explicitly says otherwise:
RickG
No the original court agreed and was overruled by a PANEL
Rick, come on you know what this case is about and its not property tax relief for homeowners
seeks to expend the taxes when collected for an illegal or unconstitutional purpose.
Awww the famous chicken salad case of 1916
The core basis of our constitutional law
Phil
Point out where Edd amended his standing to represent CLOUT I missed that the courts agreed with the lower court that Edd had no standing to sue on behalf of CLout but said he could amend that
The ruling you refer to, Eric, was a simple bench order with no written opinion favoring the state’s challenge to standing. That order was immediately appealed to the 3rd Court panel, which ruled that the District Court visiting judge had abused his discretion on multiple counts.
That ruling by the 3rd Court of Appeals panel has been sustained 3 separate times now - once before the full 3rd Court, again before the Texas Supreme Court, and again before the District Court when the case was remanded back on August 14th.
In Texas, indeed it is. Terrell has been consistently upheld and reaffirmed by the Texas Supreme Court for almost a century. In particular, see Osborne v. Keith (1944), Johnson v. Ferguson (1933), and Calvert v. Hull (1972). Of course Terrell itself was affirming an earlier iteration of the same taxpayer standing principle from City of Austin v. McCall (1902), which in turn affirmed the same principle from Looscan v. Harris County sometime back in the 1880’s. It should also be duly noted that the violation of Terrell v. Middleton was explicitly cited in one of the articles of impeachment against Gov. James Ferguson in 1917.
So yeah, as far as the chicken salad case goes it’s pretty much the Texas equivalent of a Marbury v. Madison-type precedent setting ruling.
#39 - Your persistent inability to locate the period key confounds your request, but you seem to be asking where CLOUT’s associational standing claim is amended in the suit. If that is indeed what you are asking, it is in Paragraph 12 of the amended suit…not that I expect you to be able to locate or understand that paragraph, given your demonstrable history of literacy problems.
I like chicken salad okay, but it’s not one of my favorites.
Rick - I prefer potato salad, although either work when I’m hungry.
I also know for a fact that Greg Abbott has come to despise chicken salad over the course of the last year or so.
Still waiting for a reply to the two basic simple questions I posed to you in #29 Eric?
#45 - don’t hold your breath for an answer. His sole reason for opposing this lawsuit is a bizarre and obsessive personal vendetta he has against its plaintiff. His sense of a need to oppose something simply because Edd Hendee is for it runs so strong in this case that he openly fabricates events about it to “justify” his opposition.
Witness his take on the 3rd court of appeals for example. There was no Republican dissenter on either of its rulings…though Eric has falsely attributed as much to Justice Waldrop several times.
The original ruling by Bill Bender (who is now dismissed from the case, by the way) that he calls upon so frequently to justify the state’s position is simply laughable. Eric would have you think Bender made some carefully analyzed, authoritative ruling after intensely studying the case. In reality Bender - a visiting judge - got assigned to it a mere 2 hours before the scheduled hearing time, took all of 20 minutes in oral arguments to familiarize himself about the case, and immediately made a bench ruling for the state with not so much as a word of written justification.
The appeals court slammed Bender for that about a dozen times over in their ruling and openly stated that he had abused his discretion on the bench when he dismissed the case. The suit has been in three other courtrooms since Bender’s original ruling (some of them twice) and not a single one of them has taken his side, or the state’s for that matter. The bottom line is that Eric is simply wrong, but he’ll never admit that because he’s motivated by a vendetta and he’s inventing the “facts” to fit it.
PBF
first let me apologize for not answering your question earlier - Qtel over here has been up and down must have missed it
First Question
But I have a question for you: why are you so opposed to our state governmnet working within the confines of it’s authority?
Good Question
First they are, that part of the suit is still thrown out BTW
Let me counter with the Texas Fact Book
Texas is 49th out of 50 in per capita spending.
Despite both political parties having run the show in Austin the way they calculate growth has always been done the same since I believe 1971
due to the fiscal prudence of the Lt Gov and Gov Texas has the largest surplus in real dollars of any state or in any state in history
Surplus on sales taxes means that growth has increased past the spending rate by definition
Texas is 50th by my calculations in Per Capita Wealth vs per capita spending
Some angry business owners want a Tax free Texas for themselves and this is what this dispute is about - its not about property tax relief for the working man
Second Question
And why are you and others like you so threatened by participation in the government, especially when it is derelict in the performance of it’s duties, by the very people who fund it’s existence?
Good Question
First, I missed the part where 20 million Texas Taxpayers joined Edd’s suit despite the numerous errors in Phil M’s diatribe, Edd still has to correct his pleading to show he can even represent Clout in the Lawsuit
The main part of the case is the LBB unconstitutional was upheld as dismissed three times according to our friend Phil.
So, Edd can sue so now liberal groups, School Boards, Teachers Unions can sue to compel the state to do what they want. This will utimately raise taxes and spending not lower it.
Will they win, no will they paralyze the government by holding all expenditures until long winded court cases are settled, possibly.
When every individual who feels wrongly pursued by the state can get depositions from all of the government administration
This system has now become a joke - its now the State of Edd, not the State of Texas
I appreciate the reply, Eric, and your attempt to justify your point of view: fair enough.
But it still gets down to the government of Texas working within the bounds and framework of the state Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.
The major difference in our point of views, from what I see, is that I am of the opinion that the government is in place to serve and be ANSWERABLE and ACCOUNTABLE to the people who FUND IT’S EXISTENCE.
If the state is working within the guidelines as set forth, with all the lawyers that reside and are ensconced in positions in Austin, then they should be able to clear it up with one hearing, if they are right in their positions.
The cost of having to be accountable to every citizen is irrelevant: it is the state govenment’s OBLIGATION to do so.
If Edd and the taxpayers he represents are wrong, I’m sure it can be demonstrated with facts in plain view easily enough.
But when when the Lt. Govenor is using the state AG to thwart being answerable to charges by groups representing taxpayers, it gives the appearance that the feel that they are above the law. And that the taxpayers are just like little children that they know what’s best for them, and they don’t need to be answerable to.
Good discussion Eric, and I apologize at this juncture for any previous disrespectful name calling on my part, as that always inhibits discussion, rather than advance it.
But it appears that the courts will be able to get to the truth on this one. And I for one, look very forward to it.
#47 -
No it isn’t. The only part that was dismissed was the delegation of authority question. The question on the constitutionality of the expenditures was allowed to proceed.
1979 actually, and it’s had a built in calculation error since 1979 as well. Not only is their growth estimate bad - they aren’t even doing the math right and haven’t been since day one…hence the need for a lawsuit.
Wrong. As I pointed out previously, CLOUT’s associational standing was amended to Paragraph 12 of the suit. Eric is simply choosing not to acknowledge that fact because it does not support his vendetta.
Wrong. The standing rule allows groups to sue only for the specific purpose of enjoining an illegal expenditure. This is nothing new to the CLOUT suit. It’s been allowed under Texas court precedent since the late 1800’s.
I’m not even sure what that one means. I see two verbs, neither of which agree with their apparent subjects. There’s a missing qualifier of some sort that should be designating the relationship between “LBB” and “unconstitutional.” And there’s a mid-sentence contradiction indicating that some unknown object was simultaneously “upheld” and “dismissed.” This sort of thing goes well beyond typo territory and into the realm of basic verbal communication. A conversation is allegedly going on yet one of the participants - Eric - is over in the corner aping out dyads and trying to figure out why nobody understands him.
Thx for the clarifications PhilM! I do not profess to be a legal expert, or know all the facts of the case.
But when a government cannot operate in the open, and demonstrate that thyey are trying to do so, the basics are it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Moreover, when those in public office who are sworn to serve the people are actively working to undermine them, as in our case with Craddick, Dewhurst, and Perry, they need to be flushed!
PBF
Phil is in denial the best legal way to get the spending thrown out was the legal challenge to the legitimacy of the LBB
Which was thrown out
now they have to show a convoluted method of estinmating that is better than the current but legal convoluted method of estimating
Phil may be correct but if Edd can sue and this is setting a precedent then anyone can
Look PBF
I dont know where phil and I got off on the wrong foot but here is what I want
A state sales tax on food for education so every school board gets the adjusted same amount per student like most states
The abolishment of school property taxes on homeowners
Limiting cities and counties to sales taxes
This will encourage savings and prudent spending decisions by governments, you may have downturns in economies you can’t spend everything you collect etc
Suing gets you at best temporary relief at best, changing the legislation makes these changes more permanent (not always as we know)
People need property tax relief, the money and hard feelings this suit is going to cause is IMO going to harm seriously, the efforts to get the needed removal and relief to homeowners.
#51 - As I’ve shown you many times, the precedent allowing Edd to sue has been there for 100 years. The courts merely reaffirmed it as they’ve done dozens of times before.
The fact that you contiue to lie and suggest otherwise despite a solid record of case law indicates what you’re really here for. Admit it, Eric. You oppose this suit because Edd supports it and nothing more. That’s why you outright fabricate stuff to support your untenable position.
We got off on the wrong foot the second you started telling lies about this case - not just mistaken claims but outright lies.
Lies about the precedent on standing. Lies about the courts that ruled. Lies about a supposed dissenter on the 3rd court that never happened. Lies about the amended plea. Lies about how the growth estimate is adopted. You’ve done it all, here and on multiple previous posts about this case over the last year.
I don’t care much for liars, though I feel obliged to expose them and set the record straight. And that’s what I’ll do so long as you continue to tell lies about this case, Eric.
Okay
Post you facts you still have not answered where the tax relief for homeowners is coming?
You’ve been called out phil
first before you utter another word please answer the question in DETAIL - how is this going to lower homeowners property taxes?
And then Please Phil
Show us where, where the illegalities exist, when this vast conspiracy encompassing hundreds of legislatures and state employees was hatched
Go for it
I’m a liar I admit I hatched this all by giving my opinion
But wheres the property tax relief?
I’m waiting…..
Phil
Also the chicken salad case is about unconstitutional spending and taxation
ouside the budget
I believe the courts upheld the actions of the legislature and the LBB
And the chicken salad case is not concerning the estimating methods of Texas Growth
Sorry didnt see that
And no I dont oppose Edd on this just cause Edd did it, I have discussed this case with Edd.
Also Edds a good guy, he had BDS but he’s a great human being and he has my support on anything else he does that I agree with like getting ride of Dewhurst and Fred Hill.
So please, now that the insults are over
Time to pony up where is the tax relief?
How did the surplus occur in a period of chronic overspending?
Lets see if you can go beyond the surface posting a few superficial unbuilt legal arguments and get some meat on the bloggy?
That isn’t even a coherent sentence.
Oh, I think that situation better describes yourself right now. Liar.
It all depends on what the legislature does in response to the court order generated by the suit. But that’s their decision to make. Not mine. Now its your turn to answer a question: Who cares whether it lowers property taxes? I certainly don’t. I care whether it lowers illegal state spending, and as a state taxpayer I have a direct interest in seeing that spending reduced.
The lawsuit is posted online and details them all. You are free to peruse it, assuming you can comprehend the English language it is written in. And I have my doubts to that.
Nice try, but you’re wrong as usual. The “chicken salad” purchase (actually a grocery purchase by the governor) was made from a state budget appropriation intended to allow him to buy groceries. The lawsuit sought an injunction against the comptroller on the grounds that the legislature had unconstitutionally appropriated that money in violation of the governor’s strictly capped salary.
You see, Eric, this is a perfect example of what happens when you try to tell lies about something. You operate under the mistaken assumption that the chicken salad case is arcane and inaccessible to most readers here, so you start making stuff up about the case. But your underlying assumption is flawed. There are people here who have access to the chicken salad case, and they know a heck of a lot more about it than you do. I happen to be one of them, but there are many others as well. So here we are a single post after your initial fabrication and it’s already exposed as false.
Doubtful, considering the case hasn’t even gone to trial on those grounds yet.
It was about an illegal expenditure, just as CLOUT’s case is about an illegal expenditure. The 3rd Court of appeals said the situations were analagous and directly cited Terrell v. Middleton (along with a bunch of other precedents affirming it) to justify its position that Edd Hendee has standing as a taxpayer.
Sure you have. Just like you wrote that letter in the Houston Chronicle that nobody seems to be able to locate. Like I said, Eric, don’t lie. When you lie somebody will eventually catch you.
Well, fellas, it’s like this; there was a great man about 2000 years ago who said it best ‘the truth will set you free’.
In my experience, the truth always holds together, and lies always fall apart.
As long as it goes to court, I’m confident the truth will come out.
Which seems to be exactly the bunch of lying, mealy mouth pols in Austin seem to be so afraid of!
Phil,
Edd and I conversed in writing about the case several times
I see you again did not answer the question
Where is the property tax relief to the taxpayer?
I’m going to keep asking the question until you come out of the dark angry attacks and comments and finally answer why this suit was filed Phil
You’ve been called out
[snip]
Who cares whether it lowers property taxes? I certainly don’t. I care whether it lowers illegal state spending, and as a state taxpayer I have a direct interest in seeing that spending reduced
[snip]
You see Houston, they won’t answer the question
CLOUT was formed to lower property taxes its name means Citizens for Lowering Our Unfair Taxes
And this suit is NOT going to do that and they according to Phil, dont care either
what they are not telling you is if the state which by and large co-pays with local governments for services - the local governments are going to raise the homeowners tax burdens
Which is why I oppose this suit for wasting the taxpayers money, the administrations time, and the CLOUT members cash
#60 - I’m not certain spamming Edd with ranting emails about his suit constitutes “conversing.”
As to your question, I already told you it was a pointless one with no bearing on the suit. If you want to keep repasting it in your usual pattern of botched semi-coherent english go ahead and do so, cause quite frankly I could care less.
You speak of this as if it were some sort of groundbreaking revelation. Yet if you go back to June 2006 when the suit itself was filed, you will find plainly admitted on the CLOUT FAQ that the suit is about spending cuts, not tax cuts.
http://clouttexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/CLOUT%20FAQ%20Long%20(final)1.pdf
The only person who is shocked to discover that plainly admitted fact is you, Eric, and only because of your bizarre personal fixation on this case and its plaintiffs. Everyone else knows it’s about spending and they’ve known that from day one because CLOUT admitted it from day one.
Of course all of this only further sustains my earlier point that you must be challenged in matters of basic literacy. The FAQ is there in plain daylight for any who choose to read it…assuming they can do so.
Phil
Ummmm
Clout is an organization devoted to the lowering of Property taxes
You are obviously on record as being what involved with the suit and as you said could care less about property taxes
Thats all Houston needs to know
Phil
So why should we members of Clout believe anything you say as to your motivations for this suit especially in ligtht of your comment of I don’t care about property taxes.
This suit will raise property taxes
This suit will not grant tax relief to homeowners
This suit will anger the Administration and forment resistance to the giant step of taking on literally thousands of out of control local governments by lowering and restricting the caps and amounts
You also failed to address how the surplus was accumulated while allegedly, according to Edd, the economic growth was deliberately overestimated and overspending was unconstitutionally forcibly done
You also failed
to explain the Chicken Salad case is germaine to the formula Edd Hendee is proposing (hint Edds moving the cap lower then declaring the surplus spending illegal - different chicken)
Let us know when you stop the name calling and insults and explain these things
Because you answered the only question I had as “I don’t care”
Now I’m turning on the heat lets here the real reasons why this suit was filed?
Actually it’s more of a general interest group looking out for taxpayer rights…which is the basis of the suit’s standing Edd Hendee’s status as a property taxpayer btw is what gives him that standing.
Briefly overlooking your botched grammar, I’ve stated nothing that wasn’t already publicly acknowledged in the FAQ from the very beginning. Make whatever fuss you want about it, but most people already know what the FAQ says and honestly don’t care what you think it means.
Doubtful. That would take a vote from commissioner’s court and other taxing entities that aren’t parties to this suit.
It’s certainly possible it will, but again that’s the discretion of the legislature and how they choose to address the spending issue.
Judging by the responses of Abbott, Dewhurst, Craddick, and the rest I’d say they’re already angry about the suit. Let them be angry. It’s not gonna make it go away.
Nah. The original lawsuit pleading addressed that already, as did the FAQ. But again both require literacy to access, and as the clumsily constructed jumble of phrases in your post illustrates that tool is beyond your grasp.
I see you discovered the return key…but not the period yet. Anyhow, the 3rd Court of Appeals already explained that the Chicken Salad case is germaine to Edd Hendee’s standing in this suit and that explanation has been sustained 3 times. So I’ll defer to them.
Identifying a person who habitually lies as a “liar” is no matter of simple name-calling. It’s an accurate and factual statement. If you find that term insulting when applied to you there’s a simple solution, which i’ve also explained to you many times: stop lying.
Oh, and learn to speak English while you’re working at that. Seriously - it’s impossible to tell what you’re trying to say half the time because the syntax is so clumsy and incoherent. Come to think of it that might explain why the Chronicle never ran your alleged letter that supposedly exposed all the “faults” with this suit…which would mean that you’re grammar is poor even by Chronicle standards!
Knock off the mutual personality appraisals. Debate the issues. Your personal quirks are not “the issues”.
Your other choice is to ignore each other.
I am not going to sit here and wade through 12 hours of pissing contests. Comments will be deleted.
LST Moderator
68.
Huh? You mean you have other things to do?
