Sunday, April 22, 2012


The DA Republican primary is about to explode in the next week or so.

The theme is now crystal the voters want to continue with radical change from a relative outsider or do they want to go back to the good old boy days of yesteryear?

In today's edition of the Houston Chronicle two (2) staff writers attempted to set the tone and present the candidates. In the incumbent's corner, Brian Rogers presented DA Pat Lykos and in the challenger's corner Joe Holley presented Mike Anderson.

Rogers, although obviously supportive of Lykos, attempted objectivity by pointing out Lykos' bizarre comment that she wished she had a Jack and Coke while being questioned by reporters about her DIVERT program AND touched on the ongoing investigation as to whether or not Lykos authorized an investigation of members of a grand jury who were investigating alleged wrongdoing by the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

The take home message from Rogers was:
1. Lykos campaigned to clean house and in the process of meeting that goal stepped on some toes of the  "good old boy win at all costs" network.
2. Two (2) Grand Juries investigated the DA's office but NO indictments were returned.
(Could this be a sinister conspiracy to revive the "good old boy" hang 'em high days or just a coincidence ?)
3. Limited Harris County resources are best spent dealing with serious violent criminals, not having law enforcement officers spend hours of their valuable time booking trace cases.
4.  Do the voters want a DA like Lykos who is tough but fair OR do the voters want to let the old regime back in?

Joe Holley painted Mike Anderson as a kid growing up in Mayberry.  Mike Anderson's grandfather was a barber and longtime personal friend of Percy Foreman and that's why he became a kidding?

I think it's cool that Anderson likes to bow hunt and fish. It's also cool he played strong safety at Texas Lutheran and as a dad likes little league and boy scouts . It's nice that his wife Devon was a District judge for four years and sad she couldn't get re-elected.  BUT are these good reasons to elect a candidate to be DA?
Of course not and I understand the effort at humanizing Anderson to make him likable and present a strong contrast to Lykos who is anything but warm and fuzzy.
Holley also pointed out that Anderson was a long time veteran prosecutor; but I didn't see anything memorable in the article that made him stand out. In fact it would be hard to differentiate his career as a prosecutor from Chuck Rosenthal and that, I am afraid, might be the take home message many voters may carry away from the article. 

You can't go back to high school and be a cheerleader again at 56....................I was hoping the article on Anderson would put forth some bullet points on the ANDERSON PLAN.
Statistics can be bastardized to support almost any position; so unless there is glaring irrefutable evidence to support a policy's failure or success, perception will rule.

The perception on Anderson's position seems to be:
1. DIVERT is illegal (Which I agree with but it's an issue that does not resonate with the voters)
2. Trace cases need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (voters want governments to be more fiscally responsible and common sense oriented these days)
3. Johnny Holmes was a great prosecutor and Harris County needs to go back to the days of JBH. ( I think JBH was a phenomenal DA for the time he served. JBH's once stellar reputation has been severly tainted by the shameful Rosenthal scandal and it will be exceedingly difficult to separate the two (2) images come election time. JBH endorsed Rosenthal and Anderson but not Kelly seems his endorsement picker might be jacked).

I have two (2) grave concerns for Anderson's viability:
1.  That  there will be no formal finding by the Texas Rangers that Lykos inappropriately investigated grand jurors AND if that finding is made prior to May 29th, it will be exceedingly difficult to support any reasonable conclusion but that a politically motivated manipulation of the grand jury process was designed and carried out by the Anderson team to ensure an election coup employing a"win at all costs" good old boy mindset...............perception beats reality every time in the political arena.
2. That Anderson has nothing to offer except that Lykos is bad people and he used to be a prosecutor in the days of Johnny Holmes and Chuck Rosenthal.

I have been hard on Mike Anderson in my latest posts because of my great disappointment in his campaign thus far and my love of an office whose greatness is in the balance. 
I have heard in many of the Republican functions, Anderson being told to start acting like a prosecutor and not like a Judge.............I agree.

UNLIKE 2008, he is not limited to the SUPPOSITION that an individual with zero prosecutorial experience will be a very poor choice for the position of district attorney (as obvious as that should have been to every voter)..........................Lykos has handed Anderson the gift of proving up the hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Today, however, it is NOT enough for Anderson to simply argue that because Lykos has never been a prosecutor.....blah, blah, blah..,..........because NOW not only has she been a prosecutor for the last four (4) years, she has been the top dog prosecutor in the eyes of the public and the job performance of the ADAs is now a direct reflection on Lykos' leadership.
So how are the ADAs measuring up these days? 
The voters are not concerned about what the outside world considers petty grievances that the prosecutors in the trenches complain of.............they are concerned with the performance of these folks.
SPECIFICALLY how are the 2012 ADAs  measuring up to the 2008 ADAs?

Lykos' assault on JUSTICE in Harris County is much more than DIVERT and not prosecuting trace cases.
The ADAs are the  heart and soul of 1201 Franklin and they are not being properly trained, mentored and supported for greatness..........Anderson's made that point; BUT the voters need more.
The voters will not tolerate the reality of this void under Lykos IF they are made privy to the big picture dynamics with REAL voter sensitive issue oriented outcomes that matter to them..........the voters, after all, are the target audience, not the ADAs.
General suppositions won't cut it at the voting booth............Anderson needs to lock, load and fire with precision.


TELL the VOTERS how YOU are going to make the future of the Harris County District Attorney's Office a better place with YOU at the helm..................what is your platform of reformation?

STOP acting like you are Johnny Holmes "redux" and tell the VOTERS why they need YOU.......JBH isn't running for DA you are.

Chuck Rosenthal needs to be buried...............and Mike Anderson needs to be resurrected.
This isn't 2008. You've had more than a mere couple of months to prepare. You've run campaigns before. There won't be a run-off this time for the old blue hairs to usher in one of their own.  The Chuck Rosenthal scandal isn't on every news channel.  Being a good trial lawyer won't be pejorative. Lykos has a record for you to expose and you have the's yours to lose so don't you dare do that.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

ISSUE: Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void?

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Surely, President Barack Hussein Obama, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, is familiar with this landmark decision.

Yet, Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor:
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, and I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with the individual mandate that requires most people to buy insurance.

"I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care, so there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate", said Obama.

Obama is confusing his "role" of POTUS with his earlier stint as a community organizer.............while his credentials as a Constitutional legal scholar are, it seems, as suspect as his birth certificate.