FACT: Elizabeth’s post (in between my present #32 & #33) is no longer spoken in this thread.

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.

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.”

I wonder when Delay goes to trial?

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?

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?

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.”

Anybody but Healey, please.

Now would someone please answer my earlier questions about what Healey was doing in a garage with Liz filming a donkey????

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?

“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.”

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”

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.