Why, when you don’t get caught! At least, that’s how the saying goes.

One of the candidates for Harris County District Attorney apparently thinks the saying is a good one.

At a news conference shaped by the age of digital information, Lykos played — and distributed copies of — a video disc that shows Siegler telling law students how she slipped into a final argument remarks that a judge otherwise might have ruled against.

Lykos said no prosecutor should “go around telling law students to be unethical” and that prosecutors should set a high standard for courtroom conduct even though many lawyers use such techniques.

Siegler said by telephone later that, in the video, she was discussing legitimate trial tactics unfamiliar to Lykos, whose judicial term ended in 1994.

“A good prosecutor is aggressive, and I’m aggressive,” she said.

Siegler said Lykos’ allegations underscore the fact that Lykos never worked as a prosecutor.

Now, I’m not naive and know full well that Lykos is just looking for a leg up in the race. But something about Siegler’s philosophy in that statement bugs me. No question that a prosecutor has to be aggressive. But….does a prosecutor really need to bend the rules to convict guilty defendants? And should veteran prosecutors be teaching potential prosecutors how to bend the rules?

Something about that seems…..not quite right. Is it reflective of the philosophy of the rest of the ADA’s in Harris County? Doesn’t change my opinion that Siegler is the most qualified person left in the race: it’s probably an overreaction on my part but I don’t like it.

That’s what some of the kookier Paulites are thinking after the only candidate that could save America failed to launch. Their theory? Now follow closely because this rivals even the most tangled of conspiracy theories:

• A man named Jesse Benton almost killed Andrew Jackson
• Jackson became the President who eliminated the central banking system back in the 1830s
• Ron Paul is mounting one of the most serious threats to the Federal Reserve and the banking establishment for many years.
• The Ron Paul campaign has a communications director also by the name of Jesse Benton

The ConspiTheo nuts put 2 and 2 together and come up with…petunias:

What are the odds that we would have somebody amongst the Ron Paul campaign staff with the same name as the man who almost killed Andrew Jackson? Especially considering that Ron Paul is mounting one of the most serious threats to the Federal Reserve and the banking establishment for many years. We know the establishment has infiltrated opposition groups in the past. In the past they have infiltrated groups like the anti-war movement back in the 1960s and 1970s and that they like to hide things in plain view. So why wouldn’t the establishment attempt to infiltrate one of the most serious oppositions to their power base to come along in several years? This is a question that needs to be asked considering the strange campaign strategy that was employed in Iowa and in NH especially with the lack of a massive ad blitz in NH prior to the NH Primary.

There is some questioning:

One could argue that the fact he has the same name as the man who almost killed Andrew Jackson is pure chance…

Ya think???? Man, I’m gonna miss these whackos!

Lisa Falkenberg’s column in yesterday’s Chronicle called for the creation of a Public Defender’s Office in Harris County, with Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) leading the charge.

“If you’re not with me,” the Houston senator sternly told members of the Houston Lawyers’ Association, “I hope you figure out a way to be quiet.”

Hmm. Silencing the critics. Looks like the Chronicle and Senator Ellis have a lot in common.

The article goes on to criticize the current system in place for the appointment of qualified defense attorneys to represent indigent defendants accused of crimes. Ellis and Falkenberg’s idea? Create a Public Defender’s Office.

Right now, some of the best criminal defense attorneys in the nation do criminal appointments in Harris County. Names like Skip Cornelius, Tyrone Moncreiff, Anthony Osso, David Cunningham, Alvin Nunnery, Jerry Guerinot, Layton Duer, Ricardo Rodriguez, Katherine Scardino, Robert Morrow, and other phenomenal attorneys do criminal appointments. And they do a damn good job of it, too.

If they need a private investigator to work on a case they are handling, they file a Motion with the court for the funds to hire one. I’ve never seen one of those motions denied. I’ve also never seen a Motion to Appoint an Expert denied, either. These fine members of the Defense Bar cover all of the bases. While it is easy for someone sitting on the sidelines to cast stones, I challenge Senator Ellis and Lisa Falkenberg to come down to the courthouse and watch these guys in action. They may like painting a picture of the bumbling “court appointed attorney” to their constituents/readers, but the facts just don’t support it.

I would strongly encourage Senator Ellis to solicit examples of where court appointed attorneys went to a judge for funds and were told “sorry, but we’re broke”. He should, at a minimum, look into that before single-handedly creating yet another governmental agency.

Falkenberg headlines a portion of her article as “Not a Radical Concept”, and goes on to write:

Fair Defense Act, eventually became law, but a series of scandals — from the tainted HPD crime lab to high-profile exonerations to District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal’s recent resignation — have forced anyone who cares about the criminal justice system in this county to question whether it isn’t badly broken.

Um, I’m not really sure what the crime lab scandal and Chuck’s resignation have to do with the creation of a Public Defender’s Office, but, her, it’s the Chronicle. They have to get their digs in where they can, regardless of the relevance to the topic.

Here’s the bottom line, folks. The Fair Defense Act weeded out unqualified attorneys from representing people accused of crimes. The attorneys on the appointment lists passed tests and have good reputations in the legal community for the work that they do.

Those same folks that I listed above would have no desire or incentive to go to work for a Public Defenders Office after creating successful and reputable law practices of their own. If these attorneys aren’t getting the resources that they need to defend cases, then give the County more money to assist them.

But a whole new Public Defenders Office? Why?

The people that would staff that Office would probably, for the majority, be people fresh out of law school. I don’t care if they went to the best law school in the world, they would still take years within a Public Defenders Office before they were able to develop the skills to defend against experienced Prosecutors.

And what will they do once they acquire that experience?

They will probably leave for private practice.

Falkenberg titles that section “Not a Radical Concept”. I agree that it isn’t radical, but it isn’t good either.

As for Senator Ellis, you need to realize there are other alternatives. If Judges aren’t in compliance with the Fair Defense Act, then sanction them into compliance. If appointed Defense Attorneys aren’t getting funds that they need to defend their cases, then give them more money. If those same attorneys aren’t effective at representing their clients, then remove them from the appointment list.

I know the idea of a Public Defenders Office sounds lovely on paper, but the real ramifications of it would cause dire consequences for people accused of crimes.

According to this church directory service, there are 2,668 churches in Chicago of one type or another of the Christian faith. It begs the question: why did Barack Obama choose Jeremiah Wright to be his spiritual mentor?

As more and more of his sermons are reviewed (you can buy them online!), it is clear that Mr. Wright pushes a radical, racist form of socialism. How does a guy sit in the pew week after week, year after year and not be influenced by this? And yet, after hearing these teachings for years, Mr. Obama’s plans were to have Mr. Wright deliver the invocation at his announcement that he was running for president. Why?

In addition to his sermon (sermon?) hoping that God would damn America, Mr. Wright has also said:

“Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people,” Wright preached in one Christmas sermon.

“The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means they were white. And the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.”

But Obama was different, Wright said.

“He ain’t white, he ain’t rich, and he ain’t privileged. Hillary fits the mold,” he said.

Actually, he’s half-white, he’s rich and he’s very privileged. It’s true that his father left when he was 2 and he was for the most part raised by a single mother. But as the latest front page puff piece on him by NY Times says:

By 1974, Ms. Soetoro was back in Honolulu, a graduate student and raising Barack and Maya, nine years younger. Barack was on scholarship at a prestigious prep school, Punahou. When Ms. Soetoro decided to return to Indonesia three years later for her field work, Barack chose not to go.

He was a privileged world traveler that lived with his grandparents throughout high school, then went to a small, very expensive liberal arts college, then transferred to Columbia University and then on to Harvard Law. Accomplished, yes. Privileged, yes. From the hood, no.

Mr. Wright also said:

“Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car . . . Hillary ain’t never been called a n—–.”

I guess in his racial blindness, it never occurred to Mr. Wright that women too have been discriminated against. As have Italians, Irish, Polish, Indians (Native Americans) and every other group of people on the planet.

But for years, Barack Obama sat in the pews listening to this man’s garbage, never speaking out against it, never pointing out the errors. That should tell you what type of “change” he wants to bring to America.

BTW, where has Michelle been hiding lately?

All three Presidential candidates voted in favor of a moratorium on earmarks in a nonbinding vote for the 2009 budget last night. John McCain voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against extending them:

The Senate rejected calls from both parties’ presidential candidates to take an election-year break from pork-barrel spending as a Democratic-run Congress passed budget plans that would torpedo hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts won by President Bush.

It’s an election year so many of these votes are probably symbolic at best. But how do the three candidates score on earmarks when looked at objectively?

John McCain - 41.66
Barack Obama - 25.00
Hillary Clinton - 16.66

McCain has a long history of publicly opposing pork barrel spending. Frankly, I expected him to have a much higher rating but it appears he may follow the Ron Paul method of voting against them before he happily sidles up to the trough. Hillary Clinton has been exposed as a porker so her vote can be chalked up to election year theatrics. Barack Obama didn’t do much better, although he has at least disclosed his earmarks. Note that Texas’ Senators Cornyn and Hutchison scored 66.66 and 50.00 respectively.

This non-binding resolution’s purpose is to set the stage for future binding budget legislation. In an election year it is probably even more meaningless. Still, this is disheartening:

John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn’t attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP’s credibility with voters.

It failed on a 71-29 vote. Only three Democrats joined with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in voting for it.

Twins?

——————–

——————–

——————–

Dawn Wolf Design– LST’s full-service graphic designer of choice. Talented, professional, competitively priced; a generous LST volunteer, we could not recommend her more highly. | 713-984-9200 | website

——————–