The Houston Police Officers Union this week endorsed Republican candidate Richard Raymond in his bid to unseat Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey.
Fort Bend County resident and HPOU Executive Director Mark Clark and HPOU President Gary Blankenship made the announcement.
Clark is a 31 year veteran of the Houston Police Department and has resided in Fort Bend County for 40 years.
HPOU represents all 5,092 Houston Police officers and takes an active interest in area political races.
Raymond’s endorsement by HPOU and other law enforcement leaders, including four-term Fort Bend County Sheriff Milton Wright, appears to be in response to what many law enforcement officers believe is an anti-police bias on the part of Healey and his staff.
HPOU represents all 5,092 Houston Police officers and takes an active interest in area political races.
HPOU has expressed strong dissatisfaction with Healey, taking issue after the DA charged Houston Police Officer Tommy Harris with criminally negligent homicide. Harris was charged in the 2009 death of 30-year-old Nigerian immigrant Syulvanus Okhueleigbe in an incident outside of a Stafford nightclub.
HPOU has argued Harris was only attempting to break up a fight started by Okhueleigbe outside a Stafford nightclub, and that Harris only used “standard police tactics.”
Many, including HPOU, contend Healey is pursuing inflated charges against the officer for political reasons.
2. February 2010 at 3:50 pm
“I’m so blessed with my boys embracing our politically active-lifestyle together.”
2. February 2010 at 3:44 pm
It’s always an exciting pleasure in my heart– I’m so blessed with my boyembraced embrace our politically active-lifestyle together. I loved watching them so happy at our Christmas party, meeting some of our GOP candidates either whom already knew or just met. I remember Rick Miller, our very special friend, and Chairman to our Party, asked my oldest: “Are you enjoying yourself?”… as to our candidates? … “Just speak from your heart!”… Sweet words of wisdom, if in fact they “truly are” sweet, kind words reaching out to every heart; to embrace one’s compassion and sweet kindness in one another.
FACT: Elizabeth’s post (in between my present #32 & #33) is no longer spoken in this thread.
2. February 2010 at 2:37 pm
We were out visiting about 150 homes today. Were able to talk to quite a few about the incumbent and made sure all had the most updated information on the high budget numbers and rising crime in the county. Let’s keep those boots marching and knocking through the election. It really does make a difference in these local elections!
2. February 2010 at 12:40 pm
I want to hear more about Troy, Elizabeth & John and the donkey incident.
2. February 2010 at 12:39 pm
Rainman, do you have anymore information on Howard’s daughter and the issues you alluded to in the posting above? I would be very interested to know. Wade, I’ve read the report too and the articles you are referencing but none of them confirm what you originally claimed that he was completely exonerated. In all truthfulness this is the story you are cutting up and retelling.
Ethics Commission Fines District Attorney $1,500 For Campaign Finance Violations
July 31st, 2008 | by FortBendNow Archive | Published in News
The Texas Ethics Commission has fined Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey $1,500 for violating campaign finance laws.
Sorry.
2. February 2010 at 11:09 am
and of course we know that FBN reported
From a FBN article dated July 31st, 2008
“the commission found in favor of the district attorney in several instances in which the anonymous complainent alleged more serious offenses, such as converting political contributions to personal use.”
2. February 2010 at 11:06 am
anyone can falsely allege,especially anon. Its done here daily and usually under a pseudo.
I wonder when Delay goes to trial?
2. February 2010 at 10:11 am
I’m still curious as to a response to this statement made above by rainman,
Mr. Healeys judgement could have been a little off centered when cheese ball Deleon came up with boob-tube thing. Cocktail dress is a garage with a donkey, e-gads!. I am pretty sure Healey was mortified over that deal! Deleon is kind of like headlice once she attaches herself to you it pretty certain she will have to be chemically removed. She has latched onto to Troy Neils now! I am sure when Troy Neil’s runs for sheriff she will be campaigning in a cocktail dress and high-heels! I think side-saddle on a burro would suit her well.
rainman
What does this suggest or mean rainman?
2. February 2010 at 8:43 am
That’s a good one princess.
2. February 2010 at 8:32 am
Who prosecutes DA’s? Umm, another governmentally agency CPS?
2. February 2010 at 8:26 am
I also wonder who paid for the lawyer that was hired by the incumbent to clean up these multiple charges that he was ordered to pay fines for? Hopefully not the public.
2. February 2010 at 8:23 am
For those really interested in all the details of the findings, you might want to visit the report and not just read the brief selections made by campaign operatives on this site. Further it is interesting to note after reading all the charges and responses. That the commission determined in several cases that violations of Texas law had occurred and states so in the below. I also found it a good read and amazing that the commission relies on the response by the accused as factual evidence against actual supplied documents. I encourage all readers to see the full report and determine for themselves if it looks like the the respondent (our current district attorney) is being forth-right and that if he is, then you would have to seriously question his judgement on the amount and large number of “MISTAKES” found in his filings.
You might also ask yourself why he admitted to the wrong-doing and lawful violations and paid the fine if, as one poster continues to claim, he “did no wrong” and was completely cleared by the commission, which is a FALSE statement by that campaign operative meant to mislead readers.
Here are the findings without any edits or creative comments (get the entire 13 page report of the DAs law violations and fines at ( ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf ).:
IV. Findings and Conclusions of Law
The facts described in Section III support the following findings and conclusions of law:
Failure to Disclose Office Sought
1. Each report by a candidate must include the office sought. ELEC. CODE § 254.061(1).
2. The respondent’s January 2006 semiannual report and his 30-day and 8-day pre-election reports for the March 7, 2006, primary election do not disclose the office sought. In context, the error was minor. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent committed a technical or de minimis violation of section 254.061(1) of the Election Code.
Failure to Properly Disclose In-Kind Contributions
3. Each report must include for each person from whom the candidate accepted a political contribution of more than $50 in value or political contributions that total more than $50 in value a description of any in-kind contribution. Ethics Commission Rules § 20.219(11)(E).
4. The respondent’s July 2005 semiannual report discloses seven in-kind political contributions totaling $4,150 without describing the in-kind political contributions. The respondent’s 30- day pre-election report for the March 7, 2006, primary election discloses ten in-kind political contributionstotaling$794. Thein-kindcontributiondescriptionsstate,“Auctionitem[s]for fundraiser.” That description does not adequately describe what was actually contributed as an in-kind contribution. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated section 20.219(11)(E) of the Ethics Commission Rules.
ORDER AND AGREED RESOLUTION PAGE 8 OF 13
TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SC-270333
Failure to File Reports in a Format Prescribed by the Commission
5. Each campaign finance report filed with an authority other than the commission must be in a format prescribed by the commission. ELEC. CODE § 254.036(a). The executive director shall prescribe forms for campaign finance reports. Ethics Commission Rules §18.1, § 20.19.
6. The respondent filed his campaign finance reports with the cover pages and schedules for the other information required to be disclosed on the report, but the pages disclosing political contributions were computer printouts of a spreadsheet. The report was filed with the county clerk of Fort Bend County. The report was required to be filed in a format prescribed by the commission. The spreadsheet format used by the respondent was not prescribed by the commission. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated section 254.036(a) of the Election Code.
Failure to Properly Disclose Total Political Contributions
7. Each report must include the total amount of all political contributions accepted. ELEC. CODE § 254.031(a)(6).
8. The evidence shows that on his January 2006 semiannual report, the respondent did not include a $2,204.78 in-kind contribution in the total political contribution amount. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated section 254.031(a)(6) of the Election Code.
Failure to Properly Disclose Political Expenditures
9. Each report must include the amount of political expenditures that in the aggregate exceed $50 and that are made during the reporting period, the full name and address of the persons to whom the expenditures are made, and the dates and purposes of the expenditures. ELEC. CODE § 254.031(a)(3). The report of a political expenditure for goods or services must describe the categories of goods or services received in exchange for the expenditure. Ethics Commission Rules § 20.61.
10. The evidence shows that the respondent failed to provide a sufficient description of the purpose of political expenditures as alleged in the sworn complaint. In addition, the evidence shows that the respondent disclosed himself and his wife as payee for three political expenditures instead of disclosing the actual payee. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated section 254.031(a)(3) of the Election Code and section 20.61 of the Ethics Commission Rules.
ORDER AND AGREED RESOLUTION PAGE 9 OF 13
TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SC-270333
Failure to Properly Disclose Total Political Expenditures
11. Each report must include the total amount of all political expenditures made during the reporting period. ELEC. CODE § 254.031(a)(6).
12. The evidence shows that the respondent failed to properly disclose approximately $3,700 in the total political expenditures amount on his 8-day pre-election report. Therefore, there is credible evidence of a violation of section 254.031(a)(6) of the Election Code.
Failure to Properly Disclose Loans
13. Political expenditures from personal funds, when reimbursement is intended, may be disclosed in one of two ways. A candidate or officeholder may disclose the expenditures on Schedule G of the report that covers the period in which the expenditures were made and designate that the expenditures are subject to reimbursement. ELEC. CODE § 253.035(h)(2). A candidate or officeholder may report the amount expended as a loan and may reimburse those expenditures in the amount of the reported loan. ELEC. CODE § 253.0351. Each report must include the amount of loans that are made during the reporting period for campaign or officeholder purposes to the person or committee required to file the report and that in the aggregate exceed $50, the dates the loans are made, the interest rate, the maturity date, the type of collateral for the loans, if any, the full name of the person or financial institution making the loans, the full name and address, principal occupation, and name of the employer of each guarantor of the loans, and the amount of the loans guaranteed by each guarantor, and the principal amount of all outstanding loans as of the last day of the reporting period. ELEC. CODE § 254.031(a)(2).
14. A candidate or officeholder is not required to include political expenditures from personal funds under “aggregate principal amount of all outstanding loans as of the last day of the reporting period.” Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 349 (1996).
15. The complaint alleges that the respondent failed to disclose loans on Schedule E on his July 2005 semiannual report and on his 30-day pre-election report for the March 7, 2006, primary election and improperly included Schedule G expenditures in the outstanding loan totals on these reports.
16. The evidence shows that the respondent properly disclosed the political expenditures at issue from personal funds on Schedule G. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did not violate section 254.031(a)(2) of the Election Code as to the allegation that he failed to disclose loans on Schedule E.
17. The evidence shows that the respondent included the political expenditures from personal funds disclosed on Schedule G on the cover page of his report in the outstanding loans total.
ORDER AND AGREED RESOLUTION PAGE 10 OF 13
TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SC-270333
The respondent was not required to include Schedule G amounts in the outstanding loans totals. It was not a violation for the respondent to include his Schedule G amounts in the outstanding loans totals. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did not violate section 254.031(a)(2) of the Election Code as to the allegation that he included his Schedule G amounts in the outstanding loans total.
Failure to Properly Disclose Total Political Contributions Maintained
18. Each report must include as of the last day of the reporting period for which the person is required to file a report, the total amount of political contributions accepted, including interest or other income on those contributions, maintained in one or more accounts in which political contributions are deposited. ELEC. CODE § 254.031(a)(8).
19. The reports filed by the respondent disclose total political contributions maintained at the end of the reporting periods that differ from the amounts that the complaint alleges are accurate. The complaint uses a formula that treats the reporting system as an accounting system and strictly relies upon the total contributions and expenditures disclosed on a cover page less in- kind contributions and less expenditures from personal funds. That method cannot consistently arrive at the correct amount of contributions maintained because of the statutory requirements of the reporting system. The law only requires the amount of political contributions maintained in one or more accounts to be disclosed in a report and the respondent has sworn that the proper amounts have been disclosed. There is insufficient evidence that the respondent violated section 254.031(a)(8) of the Election Code in connection with these reports.
Conversion of Political Contributions to Personal Use
20. A person who accepts a political contribution as a candidate or officeholder may not convert the contribution to personal use. ELEC. CODE § 253.035(a).
21. The evidence shows that the expenditures were made for campaign or officeholder purposes. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did not violate section 253.035(a) of the Election Code.
Failure to Disclose Receipt of Notice of Direct Campaign Expenditure by Other Individuals
22. Each report by a candidate must include the full name and address of each individual acting as a campaign treasurer of a political committee under section 253.062 of the Election Code from whom the candidate received notice under section 254.128 or 254.161 of the Election Code. ELEC. CODE § 254.061(4).
23. The evidence shows that the respondent did not fail to disclose receipt of notice of direct campaign expenditure by other individuals. The evidence shows that the respondent.
NOW if these are merely MISTAKES, don’t we have something to worry about if this man is in charge of 45+ ADAs and thousands of cases? Do these law violations constitute a violation of his oath of office? Who prosecutes a DA when they commit these violations?
2. February 2010 at 7:35 am
for those who missed the facts:
From the TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SC-270333 Report
“The evidence shows that the respondent did not fail to disclose receipt of notice of direct
campaign expenditure by other individuals. The evidence shows that the respondent inadvertently checked the box indicating that there were additional pages regarding receipt of such a notice. Checking that box in error does not violate title 15 of the Election Code or the
rules of the Ethics Commission. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did
not violate section 254.061(4) of the Election Code.”
1. February 2010 at 11:15 pm
I am grateful that others responded to the gross “errors” in #71, although willful misrepresentations are not really errors, are they?
Anybody but Healey, please.
1. February 2010 at 7:45 pm
Thank you all for reposting those links and forms. I’m taking a look at them now. I agree people need to have an open forum like this. Thanks FBN for opening it back up in time for the elections.
1. February 2010 at 7:31 pm
I remember reading that most politicians go to a lawyer in austin to white wash these things with the commission. They apparently hand the name around quite often when they are caught violating state law. It’s too bad the commission doesn’t have any teeth to strip these guys of their offices when they engage in such activity.
Now would someone please answer my earlier questions about what Healey was doing in a garage with Liz filming a donkey????
1. February 2010 at 7:17 pm
This is the exact opening statement,
The commission determined that there is credible evidence of violations of sections 254.031 and 254.036(a) of the Election Code, credible evidence that the respondent committed a technical or de minimis violation of section 254. 061 of the Election Code, and credible evidence of a violation of sections 20.61 and 20.219 of the Ethics Commission Rules, laws administered and enforced by the commission.
You are misdirecting again. I said most and you point out one minor issue. The big issues were upheld on the near 5,000 in contributions that were not reported. Please be honest if you are going to engage in this.
ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf
Here is the full report for others to read for themselves. They do not need you or I to read it for them and snip one liners out of context. He admitted to the violations of law and paid the fines as ordered. There is no way around that.
You said and I quote fully, “not only were the ethics violations filed by an anon letter the TEC cleared John Healey of any and all charges.” Are you now going to deny your statement?
1. February 2010 at 6:47 pm
From a FBN article dated July 31st, 2008
“the commission found in favor of the district attorney in several instances in which the anonymous complainent alleged more serious offenses, such as converting political contributions to personal use.”
1. February 2010 at 6:37 pm
“southerncomfort says:
February 1st, 2010 at 5:49 pm (#)
Mr fisherman, you may be taking a great deal of liberties with your statement. He was not cleared of every charge or even most charges”
From the TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SC-270333 Report
“The evidence shows that the respondent did not fail to disclose receipt of notice of direct
campaign expenditure by other individuals. The evidence shows that the respondentinadvertently checked the box indicating that there were additional pages regarding receipt of such a notice. Checking that box in error does not violate title 15 of the Election Code or the
rules of the Ethics Commission. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did
not violate section 254.061(4) of the Election Code.”
FACT: “Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent did not violate section 254.061(4) of the Election Code”
1. February 2010 at 6:35 pm
With all the rumors that are generated in political forums I believe when we find errors we should correct them. In reference to the poster above that said the ethics violations at the Texas Ethics Commission were filed anonymously that is an incorrect statement. A factual error if you will. I just looked it up at the TEC site and it states what is required to file these complaints.
SWORN COMPLAINT BEFORE THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION
An individual must be a resident of the state of Texas to be eligible to file a sworn complaint with the Texas Ethics
Commission. The complainant is required to attach to the complaint a copy of one of the following documents:
1
2
3
NICKNAME LAST SUFFIX
4
COMPLAINANT
NAME
COMPLAINANT
PHYSICAL
ADDRESS
6
7
8
9
(check if same as above)
GO TO PAGE 2
• complainant’s driver’s license or personal identification certificate issued under Chapter 521
of the Transportation Code, or commercial driver’s license issued under Chapter 522 of the
Transportation Code; or
• a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that
shows the name and address of the complainant and is dated not more than 30 days before
the date on which the complaint is filed.
I. IDENTITY OF COMPLAINANT
COMPLAINANT
MAILING
ADDRESS
MS / MRS / MR FIRST MI
COMPLAINANT
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
ADDRESS APT / SUITE #; CITY; STATE; ZIP CODE
ADDRESS APT / SUITE #; CITY; STATE; ZIP CODE
II. IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT
COMPLAINANT
E-MAIL
ADDRESS
5
RESPONDENT
POSITION OR
TITLE
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
NICKNAME LAST SUFFIX
RESPONDENT
NAME
RESPONDENT
PHYSICAL
ADDRESS
RESPONDENT
MAILING
ADDRESS
MS / MRS / MR FIRST MI
RESPONDENT
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
AREA CODE PHONE NUMBER EXT
(Full home or business address, including street, city, state, and zip code)
ADDRESS APT / SUITE #; CITY; STATE; ZIP CODE
ADDRESS APT / SUITE #; CITY; STATE; ZIP CODE
RESPONDENT
E-MAIL
ADDRESS
10
(IF KNOWN)
(Full home or business address, including street, city, state, and zip code)
AREA CODE PHONE NUMBER EXT
Effective September 1, 2009, an individual may also be eligible to file a sworn complaint with the
Texas Ethics Commission if the individual owns real property in the state of Texas. Under this
provision, the complainant will be required to attach to the complaint a copy of a property tax bill,
notice of appraised value, or other government document that shows the name of the complainant,
shows the address of the real property in Texas, and identifies the complainant as the owner of the
real property.
So as you can see they require quite a bit of detail before even accepting a complaint regarding a violation of Texas law. They must also be a resident of the state and be able to prove it. I believe some news agencies report these as anonymous, but they are not filed as such. So let’s do our best to be factual in our representations in these discussions. Misleading people who read these threads should not be the goal of anyone.
1. February 2010 at 6:09 pm
Raymond is not completely honest. Has anyone really checked his background? How many criminal cases has he tried? He and Sherriff Wright are from the same hometown, hence the cronyism.
He is not all that he says he is. Look deeper.
1. February 2010 at 5:50 pm
Thank you kat princess for sharing the Needville information.
1. February 2010 at 5:49 pm
Mr fisherman, you may be taking a great deal of liberties with your statement. He was not cleared of every charge or even most charges. Where are you reading that? He paid fines and admitted to the violations. He was even ordered to file amended reports. Is that wishful thinking? I ran into a neighbor the other day that when I showed him this very report he said it was a lie. I asked him if he thought the commission was lying, I was lying or if it was someone else. All I can say is you do have people that like to intentionally mislead others out there that is why I always encourage them to read the reports for themselves as I have done.
Here is the report for others to read thanks to the posting above. I can see this is going to be a long election with lots of the usual disinformation people spinning lies.
ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf
I suggest people read the entire report for themselves. I did and it makes for an interesting review. Here is one you all may like that I just found. It demonstrates how unprofessional the incumbent is, even when terminating a close friend.
fortbendnow.com/2009/05/16/37907
Elliott described a bizarre scene in Healey’s office during the firing – about a half-hour after a man Elliott had prosecuted on intoxicated manslaughter charges was given a maximum sentence.
Elliott said Healey called him into his office, congratulated him on the verdict and then had him sit on a couch in front of a glass coffee table with some books stacked on them. “He says, ‘I want you to see if you can read what’s under these books,’” Elliott said, adding that Healey then slid the books aside.
Taped to the glass on the underside of the table was Elliott’s termination letter, Elliott said. The letter said he had been “overzealous” in his position.
“He used a magic trick for a termination after I put 17 years into the office,” Elliott said. “That office is 100% political.”
1. February 2010 at 5:10 pm
If you want to vote for Integrity, then vote in a NEW DA.
A man with Integrity would stand up and take responsibility and not throw a longtime lead Assisant DA under the Bus to try and hide his poor leadership of the DA’s office.
How sad is it for the DA to try and use a case that his office lost so badly for a campaign ad to try and prove his leadership ability. This speaks volumes for the loss of his moral compass. For the TRUE facts that the DA failed to mention in his ad long on to http://www.JusticeNotPolitics.com This site should be up in a couple of days and will give the TRUE facts on how the DA’s office is so poorly lead in handling cases and wasting the tax payers dollars of Fort Bend County.
Vote for a NEW DA and bring True Integrity and Justice back to the DA’s Office!
1. February 2010 at 4:37 pm
Here was a good article on some of the criticisms leveled this year at the incumbent that many will find interesting patriot, princess +. I especially like his first sentence.
GOP voters can send message to DA’s office
By Fred Hartman
District Attorney John Healey deserves to be ousted in the March 2 Republican primary, and we were reminded again this week about why that needs to happen.
Healey faces two opponents in Nina Schaefer and Richard Raymond. Two of the central issues will be how he sanctioned wrongful prosecutions of nine men in the Holden Roofing and Jamie Roberts cases.
Essentially, Healey let “white collar crime” prosecutor Mike Elliott run amok and abuse his prosecutorial power.
When Elliott had to file multiple dismissals in both cases and failed to get any convictions, Healey fired him because he became a political liability with the election looming. Since then, Healey has offered a litany of excuses for his poor judgment and inability to control Elliott.
In a candidate forum with Schaefer and Raymond this week, Healey blamed the Fort Bend Herald’s coverage of the Holden Roofing and Roberts trials because he said we disliked Elliott. For the record, other newspapers have also been critical of Healey and Elliott, along with numerous Fort Bend and Houston lawyers.
Healey is deliberately trying to divert attention from his performance. The media’s feelings aren’t the issue. Editorial writers and columnists have a problem with arrogance, bullying tactics, withholding key evidence and general unfairness toward people who haven’t committed crimes.
We have a responsibility to hold our district attorney’s feet to the fire when he allows a prosecutor to use the grand jury as a battering ram and waste taxpayer money.
Healey said in the forum the Holden Roofing and Roberts cases are two “out of approximately 10,000 cases that have been pulled out of context and made to stand for something this office is not.”
Did he say that with a straight face?
At his campaign Web site, http://www.johnhealeyfbda.com, Healey offers more self-serving, delusional blather about Roberts. He can’t even get his facts straight, wrongly stating Roberts was a former Fort Bend ISD trustee.
“(Healey) bases his prosecution decisions only on facts — not on political expediency,” it states. He also refers to having a “strong moral compass,” a response to one of Roberts’ lawyers, Richard Tate, saying Healey had “lost his moral compass.”
Healey also states “the fact that a jury returns a verdict of not guilty does not mean that the state should not have proceeded with the case.”
With Roberts, that’s exactly what it means. Several jurors even said so afterward because the evidence was so weak. Healey’s implication is Roberts was guilty even though he was found not guilty of official oppression. That’s an outrage.
“The District Attorney’s Office withheld evidence from the grand jury,” Roberts said this week. “The buck stops with John Healey. He should be held accountable.”
Roberts is supporting Raymond, but if Schaefer gets into a runoff with Healey, he said he’d be 100 percent behind her.
Roberts said he was put on trial for enforcing Fulshear city ordinances, and to this day can’t figure out Healey’s motivation or reasoning.
“My trial was an embarrassment for how inadequate the District Attorney’s Office is being run,” he added.
If there is a runoff in this three-person race, it will be April 13. You can bet Healey is feeling the heat. Republican voters have an opportunity to send a message they won’t tolerate continuing abuses of power.
1. February 2010 at 3:21 pm
not only were the ethics violations filed by an anon letter the TEC cleared John Healey of any and all charges.
1. February 2010 at 3:13 pm
What was Healey & Liz doing in a garage videotaping a donkey?
1. February 2010 at 2:43 pm
“A MAN WHO IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!”
This post is interesting given the facts shared above and already in this thread.
1. February 2010 at 2:41 pm
I’m not sure what is considered “honorable” anymore if we accept politicians of long standing and allow them to remain in office when they have admitted to repeated lawful violations and violating their oaths of office to uphold those same laws and constitution of Texas. The “honorable” thing would have been to resign and not try and pretend they are minor infractions. We already know he made admissions on all of the counts against him and several of them are significant. These are public trust issues. We’ve discussed the amounts that were not reported but one question that lingers is why would any elected official deliberately not report large contributions on their finance reports as REQUIRED by the same laws they are sworn to uphold? I’m sure oaths to office don’t mean anything to paid political consultants but they do to the rest of us who are paying the taxes and voting. I also don’t like having paid members of the DAs office walking my subdivision and campaigning for the incumbent either. I’m sure that is probably a violation of state law too, but who will enforce it?
1. February 2010 at 2:09 pm
rainman this site doesn’t put much stock in integrity like we do.
1. February 2010 at 1:35 pm
Wadefishin, thank you so much for finding that article an posting it. Music to my ears.
VOTE INTEGRITY VOTE JOHN HEALEY DA!
A MAN WHO IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!
1. February 2010 at 12:41 pm
Let’s not get lost in Needville without properly addressing the “grassroots” fundamental rights to an individual citizen’s realistic expectations that DA Healey never should have allowed Any Assistant DA to “legally base a current case against” A prior case that was legally and responsibly dismissed…. The lead DA in Needville’s sole intent was to justify a PATTERN to this particular violation; however he fails to be honest with integrity by way of re-hashing that initial legally dismissed “violation” into accepting it as never being legally dismissed. In other words, that is DA Healey’s legal share of responsibility to reign in his Assistant DA’s to not only legally follow the law, to crimes or violations that are indeed a violation… Not dissmissed violation!
1. February 2010 at 11:51 am
DA’s response to Dick Tate
“DA responds … says Robert prosecution justified
Dear Editor;
Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Dick Tate, one of the attorneys for Fulshear Mayor Jamie Roberts, I still have my moral compass. It is my conscience that guides my professional life. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure admonishes every prosecutor “to see that justice is done.” This grave responsibility guides me as I work with the 44 prosecutors of my office in examining approximately 11,000 cases annually for consideration of criminal prosecution. Additionally, almost all major decisions are discussed and analyzed by myself, key personnel, and or chief prosecutors, prior to their implementation.
In the matter of Mayor Roberts, he, his defense team, and political pundits have suggested that the goal of my office was to force his resignation. This assertion is false and not supported by my relationship with Mayor Roberts. In fact, before Mayor Roberts’ actions pertaining to this case, I was pleased that he was Fulshear’s mayor as well as a friend and supporter of mine. He allowed his name to be used in support of my re-election efforts. He called me during the investigation by the sheriff’s office into his alleged theft of two carports. We spoke cordially several times after he was indicted and shook hands even during his trial.
I was aware that bringing charges against a popular public figure was politically unwise. But no citizen is above the law, and so the Judicial Process was followed. A police investigation took place. The Grand Jury heard from over thirty witnesses including Jamie himself. Mayor Roberts was indicted and a trial was conducted.
Many criminal matters result in negotiated settlements, just like in civil cases. But when the sides to a criminal lawsuit can not resolve the issue, a full trial is frequently had. When negotiations failed in the Roberts case, the choice was to either try the case involving alleged misuse of tax dollars or to drop the matter. The latter choice would send a clear message that the District Attorney’s Office allows similar actions to go unchallenged.
Important facts on which the state based its decision to seek indictments of Mayor Roberts were as follows:
In October, of 2006, the late Jim Gibson reported that two of his carports had been taken from an easement. This easement was not on property owned by the city of Fulshear, nor Jamie Roberts, nor Metro. It was on private land.
In September of 2006, a man named David Rabius approached Roberts about two carports located on property set back from the intersection of FM 359 and FM 1093. Roberts told Rabius that if Rabius moved one of the carports to Roberts’ property, then Rabius could have the second carport. Roberts told Rabius which carport he wanted and where to take it. The second carport was subsequently attached to Rabius’ garage.
In a sworn statement, given on October 11, 2006, Roberts stated:
1.) David had inquired as to two carports on the property located at the south east corner of FM 1093 and FM 359.
2.) The carports were abandoned.
3.) David took carports and delivered one to my place.
4.) I had no knowledge that the carports belonged to any individual.
Yet, in another sworn statement dated 2/5/07, Mayor Roberts stated:
1.) They (the carports) belong to a gentleman, and I called him on his cell phone, Jesse.
2.) And I asked Jesse what do you want to do with these (the carports).
3.) And he said : have him (the carport mover, Rabius) put one of them at the barn, but the other one he can just have.
Roberts had completely contradicted his earlier sworn statement that the carports were abandoned and unowned!
Roberts’ sworn statement mentioned several times that Roberts had called Jesse on the day he and Rabius went to the location of the carports. Roberts said that he called from his cell phone, and he gave its number, yet a subsequent check of Roberts’ cell phone records showed that no call had been made to Jesse’s cell phone for the month of September 2006.
Roberts claimed in this statement, that in his October 11, 2006 statement, that he had told the Sheriff’s Department detective that Jesse had been the owner of the carports, but that the detective chose to omit it from Roberts’ October 11, 2006 statement. Under oath at trial, the detective denied this assertion.
Ultimately, the cases regarding the alleged theft of the carports could not be pursued because the law requires that for a theft conviction, it must be proven that the owner did not give his consent to the taking of his property. The death of the owner made a conviction unlikely, so they were dismissed. The most serious case for which Roberts was tried consisted of Roberts’ alleged use of taxpayers’ money to pay for a survey, allegedly used in defending himself in his carport case and not for the city’s business.
Trial evidence showed:
1.) Mayor Roberts claimed the survey showed the location of the carports at the time they were moved by Rabius.
2.) Mayor Roberts under oath on September 17, 2007 told multiple stories as to the reason he ordered the survey.
3.) The survey was ordered approximately three weeks prior to its presentation to authorities.
4.) Roberts under oath on September 17, 2007 said that the purpose of the survey was for mowing and beautification, yet this statement indicated that mowing had been going on for approximately a year prior to the survey being ordered.
5.) Mayor Roberts knew that the city was to be charged for the survey he ordered.
6.) The city paid this bill of over $1,100.00.
Long before the trial, efforts were made by my office to resolve the matter. Mr. Tate has claimed that “the D.A. told the mayor’s first lawyer the charges would be dropped if Roberts would resign. There was no effort to get the property back.” This statement by Mr. Tate is factually inaccurate. After becoming aware of the evidence regarding the carports, I had the following offer conveyed to Mr. Roberts’ first attorney: That the mayor should, to avoid prosecution, pay full restitution to the owner of the carports, make a public statement in which he accepted responsibility for their taking, and resign from office.
Public officials who have run afoul of the legal system have frequently been expected by the public and prosecutors to resign their office to avoid prosecution. The Mayor’s attorney responded that he thought that the Mayor may be agreeable to the offer, except that he would not resign his office. I believe that my offer was conveyed to the mayor, because attorneys have an ethical responsibility to convey offers to their clients.
Mr. Tate and I met a few weeks before trial. By this time the owner of the carports had died and we had conveyed that fact to Mayor Roberts’ legal team. We were focusing on the charge involving the misuse of taxpayer money. Mr. Tate asked if there was any way that they could avoid the Mayor’s resignation. “What if we paid restitution?” Mr. Tate inquired. I felt the public had a right to expect restitution, (now to the estate of the carport owner and to the city of Fulshear) and an explanation and resignation. I declined Mr. Tate’s suggestion. He promptly said “Then we’ll go to trial.” And we did.
Multiple trials occur almost every week in the Fort Bent County Courthouse and our office wins the majority. Both the accused and state place the facts before a jury. To prevail, the state must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mr. Roberts’ acquittal meant that the jury was not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
My office accepts and respects the jury’s verdict. We have convicted murderers, child molesters, robbers, drivers driving while intoxicated, thiefs, burglars, and drug dealers to name a few. I can assure you that before, during, and after the Roberts case, I listened to, and will continue to listen to, that voice inside of me that seeks to do JUSTICE.
John Healey
District Attorney
Fort Bend County”
its amazing the smear tactics are being used here….here’s the “real” facts pseudoman.
1. February 2010 at 10:15 am
Exactly, stated professionally once again Jaghund!
1. February 2010 at 10:02 am
Facts are not “smears” and elections are about choices people have to make and in order to do so they need the facts. I don’t see any poster attacking family members but it sure sounds like you are implying that. However I would strongly suggest that people read these materials and double check them for themselves before making a decision. I have and I’m not supporting the incumbent, nor will I after reviewing all of this. Anyone that thinks this is all some big mistake needs to call and talk to the victims in these cases or just read the report above from a former friend of the incumbent Richard Tate. A very well constructed piece of work from the former county bar association president.
I gave Judge Clawson three names for his consideration, one of whom was John Healey. Mr. Hardin also recommended Mr. Healey. During the ensuing 16 years I have remained a friend of John Healey despite many situations where his judgment has been questionable. However, having now observed his conduct and that of his office during the grand jury and the trial phases of Jamie Roberts’ case; and, having now observed not only his refusal to apologize to Mr. Roberts and his family, but his desperate attempt to justify this groundless prosecution, I regretfully conclude that Mr. Healey has lost his moral compass and, in my opinion, is no longer professionally or ethically deserving to hold the office of District Attorney.
Respectfully,
Dick Tate
FB Attorney
Just ask Mr. Tate who he is supporting and why he felt strongly enough about all this to write down for the public after the trials had ended!
1. February 2010 at 9:42 am
John Healey was not riding a donkey! The donkey was in the garage. For pete sake if we are going to smear each others candidate let’s do it with some decorum of ethics!
I am voting for John Healey and you can vote for who ever you want to. This is the American way. And we really should stop smearing each others candidate, they have families. I am feeling kinda bad now. Raymond has three adorable children that I am sure love their dad and he love them. So, I take all bad think back about Raymond. If someone would have talk about my dad, mom, wife or husband I would be pretty upset. SO I AM SORRY! I guess since I am breaking my blog addiction you want see me anymore!
GOOD LUCK AT THE RACEs!
John Healey has my vote all the way !
1. February 2010 at 8:46 am
Can anyone find that famous youtube on Healey riding a donkey? I would love to see that link here.
1. February 2010 at 8:44 am
Thank you princess for answering my question regarding the other case. It seems consistent with the reports coming out on this forum. Here is another good article from a local paper not backing the incumbent.
fbherald.com/articles/2010/01/15/opinion/doc4b5089e42d67c902261192.txt
Just add the www to the front. It is a very interesting report.
1. February 2010 at 8:23 am
Exactly my points–JAGHUND!!!
1. February 2010 at 8:17 am
What’s interesting in that last article is this, “Roberts is supporting Raymond, but if Schaefer gets into a runoff with Healey, he said he’d be 100 percent behind her.” Both the prosecuting ADA Elliot, and the one charged in that case, are supporting, along with several law enforcement agencies, Mr. Raymond. If this many groups, who don’t normally form alliances are backing opponents to the incumbent then people need to dig deeper as to why.
1. February 2010 at 8:14 am
Thank you Kat for clarifying the issues with the asst da. I also found this piece too from Mr. Hartman in one of two papers who are no longer supporting Healey:
“Give Healey the boot�-
GOP voters can send message to DA’s office
By Fred Hartman
Published:
Friday, January 15, 2010 12:22 PM CST
District Attorney John Healey deserves to be ousted in the March 2 Republican primary, and we were reminded again this week about why that needs to happen.
Healey faces two opponents in Nina Schaefer and Richard Raymond. Two of the central issues will be how he sanctioned wrongful prosecutions of nine men in the Holden Roofing and Jamie Roberts cases.
Essentially, Healey let “white collar crime” prosecutor Mike Elliott run amok and abuse his prosecutorial power.
When Elliott had to file multiple dismissals in both cases and failed to get any convictions, Healey fired him because he became a political liability with the election looming. Since then, Healey has offered a litany of excuses for his poor judgment and inability to control Elliott.
In a candidate forum with Schaefer and Raymond this week, Healey blamed the Fort Bend Herald’s coverage of the Holden Roofing and Roberts trials because he said we disliked Elliott. For the record, other newspapers have also been critical of Healey and Elliott, along with numerous Fort Bend and Houston lawyers.
Healey is deliberately trying to divert attention from his performance. The media’s feelings aren’t the issue. Editorial writers and columnists have a problem with arrogance, bullying tactics, withholding key evidence and general unfairness toward people who haven’t committed crimes.
We have a responsibility to hold our district attorney’s feet to the fire when he allows a prosecutor to use the grand jury as a battering ram and waste taxpayer money.
Healey said in the forum the Holden Roofing and Roberts cases are two “out of approximately 10,000 cases that have been pulled out of context and made to stand for something this office is not.”
Did he say that with a straight face?
At his campaign Web site, http://www.johnhealeyfbda.com, Healey offers more self-serving, delusional blather about Roberts. He can’t even get his facts straight, wrongly stating Roberts was a former Fort Bend ISD trustee.
“(Healey) bases his prosecution decisions only on facts — not on political expediency,” it states. He also refers to having a “strong moral compass,” a response to one of Roberts’ lawyers, Richard Tate, saying Healey had “lost his moral compass.”
Healey also states “the fact that a jury returns a verdict of not guilty does not mean that the state should not have proceeded with the case.”
With Roberts, that’s exactly what it means. Several jurors even said so afterward because the evidence was so weak. Healey’s implication is Roberts was guilty even though he was found not guilty of official oppression. That’s an outrage.
“The District Attorney’s Office withheld evidence from the grand jury,” Roberts said this week. “The buck stops with John Healey. He should be held accountable.”
Roberts is supporting Raymond, but if Schaefer gets into a runoff with Healey, he said he’d be 100 percent behind her.
Roberts said he was put on trial for enforcing Fulshear city ordinances, and to this day can’t figure out Healey’s motivation or reasoning.
“My trial was an embarrassment for how inadequate the District Attorney’s Office is being run,” he added.
If there is a runoff in this three-person race, it will be April 13. You can bet Healey is feeling the heat. Republican voters have an opportunity to send a message they won’t tolerate continuing abuses of power.”
1. February 2010 at 8:13 am
17 years is way too long.
The rest of the nation should take advise from Illinois and limit all politicians to two terms.
One in office.
One in prison.
“Fight organized crime…re-elect no one”
1. February 2010 at 7:20 am
And….Why is the leading Assistant FBC DA in the Needville court have the right to re-serve a citizen all over again, and abuse that citizens initially dismissed case against them??? It’s true. That’s abusive to our entire county as well, because that is the case I referenced earlier in this thread. It’s crock!!!!!
1. February 2010 at 6:59 am
Why do I read so many publications and inferences of private citizens, either not based or living in Fort Bend especially, demean our court system by way of calling it a “Kangaroo Court” ? Why does every charge initially written up, in essence “gnawed to death” even when the charge never fit the “crime” in the first place? Exactly, this is all true! Why is the mindset here: “Gee, you MUST have done something wrong!!!” has anyone ever thought about this rationally as to why there are nit 2way conversations or more as verification statements to witness’ on some of the initial police reports at the time of the supposed “said offense”? It all relates to trumping up charges, for it is far easier to arrest than to patiently talk that questionable incident through . …Where’s the love guys?
1. February 2010 at 6:40 am
so the attacks on Healey are retaliation for the utube video John made?