The West Fort Bend County Republican Women’s Club will host a candidate forum at 6 p.m. Feb. 11 at the Swinging Door Restaurant, 3814 FM 359 in Richmond. The forum will feature the contested Republican Primary races for the offices of Judge County Court at Law No. 2 and Fort Bend County District Attorney.
Candidates for County Court at Law No. 2 Rick Forlano and Jeff McMeans will square off followed by Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey and his opponents, attorneys Nina Schaefer and Richard Raymond.
Candidates will field questions from a media panel as well as written questions from the audience. Admission is free and the public is invited. A dinner buffet will be available for a nominal charge beginning at 6 p.m. This is the last scheduled forum before early voting begins. For more information contact either Janice Gillen at Janice@gillenpestcontrol.com or Susan Cannata at burgerbizinc@aol.com.
12. February 2010 at 10:40 pm
Sweet: Wade, my son just called… Just won all 3 rounds @ school’s Debate Tournament !!!! I feel so blessed especially today. Trust in faith; love always, forever– with that I pray–my wish and hope to see/know you there in our Party together!
12. February 2010 at 9:24 pm
It’s great to see so much information on this campaign in this thread. All you have to do is cut through a little chaff and distractions. The links above are very useful!
12. February 2010 at 7:26 pm
YW Kat see you there?
12. February 2010 at 7:26 pm
The View tuck in your shirt before running for cty judge….hahaha
12. February 2010 at 6:22 pm
GOP fails to answers you/your questions. Plus GOP say; I can’t do anything about it!! But Real Leaders can do something about it officially, to answer your question for a solution to justice.
12. February 2010 at 3:34 pm
Wade, TY!! Actually, I just got that e/m 2day– mine wasn’t “dup’d” like others.
12. February 2010 at 2:00 pm
Go Jeff. Get those reports out on machine candidate Forlano and the rest of that bunch! Way to go! Great debate and to think the central committee used Forlano as their ethics expert. Kinda reminds me of the McCarthy era!
12. February 2010 at 12:50 pm
What would be poetic justice is if all dems got elected, and Ft Bend Cty went back to how it used to be when dems ran the county. You’d think people would have learned from the 2008 hopey changey election. BTW how is that working out for you?
12. February 2010 at 12:22 pm
it was a typo kinda like when someone types decent and they meant dissent….yanno?
12. February 2010 at 12:13 pm
Block-walking continues as we’ve hit several dozen neighborhoods thus far. Keep up the good work and enjoy the lovely ad featured in the upper right corner of this news media. Click on it and get more information on the real issues and concerns that need to be addressed in this race!
12. February 2010 at 9:35 am
Then why would you post in num 21 that it was a, “11:00am lunch, 11:30 District Attorney Candidate Forum. For more information, call…” Proof read what you put out there once in awhile.
12. February 2010 at 8:36 am
Then I would be much more careful about posting that it is a district attorney forum as you did in #16 & #21.
“Meeting at Spring Creek Barbeque, 4895 Highway 6 South in Missouri City.
11:00am lunch, 11:30 DISTRICT ATTORNEY CANDIDATE FORUM. For more
information, call Tina Gibson”
And yes it was a great session. McMeans talked real ethics and Forlano talked around it and criticized the state ethics commission for it sanctions against him (the gop ethics council, kinda ironic isn’t it).
Let’s hope Patterson can expose Smelley too. I just love Steve’s statement that he is going to do for the county what he did for the school district ($18 million in the red and 1.4 billion in debt). In that case we can look forward, if he is elected, to double digit deficits, record bond debt and chaos in the budget. Naturally they are both edc boys so it shouldn’t matter much to you who wins but shades of grey come into play for this race.
A friend once told me that after attending some of these political functions you are going to want to take a good bath. I know what she meant now. LOL
12. February 2010 at 6:50 am
Did Jeff explain how he was qualified because it was his father’s seat? Would that be cronyism or nepotism?
Did Raymond explain his relationship with business associate and now convicted felon Joey Sula as reported by the Ft Bend Star yesterday?
12. February 2010 at 12:50 am
That was without a doubt the best candidate forum I have ever attended.The crowd was close to 200 people.The forum was well organized and the panelists and moderators were excellent. The debate was lively and at times heated. When Nina Schaefer closed by saying that Raymond and Healey had said nothing but half truths and misleading statements about each other I bout fell out of my chair.I do have one question. Did Richard Raymond really intimate he would rehire Mike Elliott or was I just reading too much into his statement about receivng Elliott’s endorsement?
11. February 2010 at 9:47 pm
The best thing about the debate tonight was watching Healey and Forlano explain how they have not violated ethics during their careers. Way to go Jeff McMeans and both of the DA challengers! Over-all a great display.
11. February 2010 at 9:44 pm
It was great to see a very lively debate tonight between Forlano and McMeans; Healey, Nina and Richard! Way to go Jeff, Nina & Richard!!!
11. February 2010 at 5:30 pm
No the date is correct its the 19th, and the forum is Patterson vs Smelley, Prct 4 Commissioner,
Rick Forlano. vs Jeff McMeans. Cty Court at Law 2
Once again I will be at the debate on the 19th.
11. February 2010 at 5:17 pm
It isn’t just the sheriff who has jumped ship. He endorsed him last time but not this and the Houston association of police are also jumping ship and joining Raymond too. One more should be coming in for Richard soon. The question should be why are so many jumping ship???
11. February 2010 at 4:14 pm
Ahh sweet, Wade misses playing with TexasRose. So what do “oui” do 2 “happy ever FBN after” debate 2gether… hmm?
Tonight @ 6:00 is the final debate, whereas Spirit of Freedom’s took your Missouri City home into “1st place” – January 15th …thereafter coffee @ Mugz Bar – February 19th to meet DA Candidate Richard Raymond.
11. February 2010 at 4:06 pm
“wounder why the sheriff is not backing up the current D.A
That said alot about something?”
There is always a riff between sheriff’s and the DA! DON’T YOU WATCH TV!
11. February 2010 at 2:43 pm
I believe a correction should be made in the post above that the date of Feb 19th is incorrect and that debate has already taken place according to other sources. The final debate as noted in the release above is tonight at 6:30p and is at the swinging door in Richmond.
11. February 2010 at 2:33 pm
The forum posted in #21 has already passed. You may want to update your calendar wadefishin.
11. February 2010 at 1:20 pm
I wounder why the sheriff is not backing up the current D.A
That said alot about something?
11. February 2010 at 1:00 pm
as previously stated I’m going to the debate next week on Friday.
11. February 2010 at 12:59 pm
Spirit of Freedom District Attorney Candidate Forum
Meeting at Spring Creek Barbeque, 4895 Highway 6 South in Missouri City.
11:00am lunch, 11:30 District Attorney Candidate Forum. For more
information, call Tina Gibson, President – 281-491-6599
When Fri Feb. 19 11am – 1pm Central Time
Where Spring Creek Barbeque, 4895 Highway 6 South in Missouri City
11. February 2010 at 12:48 pm
Why not just repost the entire 13 page investigation from the Texas Ethics Commission so everyone can read the law violations, sanctions and admissions for themselves instead of taking a few select parts that you think will confuse everyone?
Link:
ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf
fortbendnow.com/2010/01/28/43604#comment-10295 (add www to both addresses)
And I wonder why Raymond is picking up all the major law enforcement endorsements?
Yes the truth will set you free, especially at election time.
11. February 2010 at 12:34 pm
Furthermore, what is a LEO anyway? Everyone’s terminology or writing may be unique & or different from the way their piers, family or friends … adding in “media speak” to that difference. Personally, I like John but, perhaps IMHO, he should not be in his incumbent position considering several public incidents either in the media, or as I spoke of in my #18 post. My knowledge as to his being “Uniformed” in my first written sentence denotes another incident that he may not have been privy to; therefore that sentence may become misleading into my entire paragraph. That I wish to make positively clear. However, in the latter part of my #18 my thoughts & words are toward the emotions that we all feel once we’re confronted….My feelings are in that I love LEO’s when they love us in return to “allow” our side of a story or something written upon my facebook pages, that absolutely never had a personal name attached to my words…in that my words were of a generality & were my words not his. That’s the point.
11. February 2010 at 10:32 am
I shall not allow “in your face” tactics, bruises denoting “force” by Uninformed DA’s without that LEO reading his Gus Academy manual to consult with. DA Healey shook his finger at me, at the Gus Academy Ribbon cutting for his attempt to show a subjective claim into what I write on my facebook– seveal times shaking his finger in my face, interrupting “my”question to him. That is a fact, if it was in jest it was not funny. If this is truly his own feelings it’s not funny other. I truly support our LEO’s when they respect everyone’s feelings, and right to say words that never had a mean word, or feeling written in it. Thank you kindly. Period. Exclamation point taken.
11. February 2010 at 9:42 am
{Alas, this Debate is tonight–TelePrompTer anyone?}
11. February 2010 at 6:13 am
hear’s a typical example of how some always get it wrong:
“MissouriCityChatter: FBN: Final District Attorney’s Debate Will Be …Feb 9, 2010 … FBN: Final District Attorney’s Debate Will Be This Thursday! …”
I’m going to the DA’s debate next week on Friday.
11. February 2010 at 6:04 am
google is your friend “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.”
and:
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”
FACT: “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”
FACT: “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”
I know facts are hard for some to understand.
10. February 2010 at 9:16 pm
Point well taken Kat! Our elected officials should be engaged as well as involved.
————–
It’s amazing that you forget to include the article heading and the fact that the incumbent has already plead guilty to those state laws he violated last year. Why do you keep repeating this mistake? Try not to be so selective wade when you cut and paste the one misleading liners that you seem to be known for:
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…
-And remember this time, you can’t report these violations anonymously according to the commission rules as you’ve already been told before but continue to ignore. It is the news papers that decide whether or not to report the citizen who filed the charges but again you seem to leave that out as well as the fact that he has already admitted to the case and the commission has already made its ruling.
Maybe if you repeat it enough someone may believe it??? I remember in another thread you claimed he had been completely exonerated. What happened with that false claim?
10. February 2010 at 9:06 pm
While block-walking we ran into a police officer that said his department didn’t like dealing with the DA’s office. He was in the warrant division and wanted all our material and some signs. Perhaps this is why most of the big law enforcement agencies are backing Raymond.
I’m sure not going to miss the next debate Thursday! I believe early voting starts Tuesday the 16th with election day March 2nd. Let’s all get out and make a difference!
10. February 2010 at 7:06 pm
And… back to why the incumbent never attends VIP “policing stuff” like never attending Sugar Land City Council As I previously mentioned. The Annual Crime Statistics Report is relative to his position, if he truly cared to listen to it… and add his own commentary or questions at the appropriate time that is allowed. (Instead he’s MIA)
10. February 2010 at 3:46 pm
Yes, stop the viral attacks from all camps and get back on message. Great idea!
10. February 2010 at 3:40 pm
I for one am not in favor of change for change’s sake….look at what that got us in 2008.
I say let the better candidate win as it should be.
Some ask why the smear tactics maybe its all they know?
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.”
10. February 2010 at 2:43 pm
I have had the opportunity to meet all three candidates in this race and found all of them personable, intelligent, accessible and quite nice. I’m sure they all have wonderful qualities they bring to the table and I’m just a bit disappointed that the dialogue has once again disintegrated into baser name calling and character assassination. Let’s try to keep these posts focussed on the real issues and not projected false images one or the other might want the public to believe. The public deserves no less than an open and honest exchange of facts.
Please
Now that being said, I would tend to agree that it is time, after 17 years, for a new DA.
10. February 2010 at 2:18 pm
Just see the admitted law violations and then ask yourself do we need a chief prosecutor who violates his oath of office, breaks Texas law and runs a departmental budget up by over 40% (second highest in the county) during a recession when the rest of the county budgets were asked to stay below a 10% increase?
Sorry, no contest.
ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf
and this from a former friend and colleague who helped him get into office:
“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
Former Fort Bend Bar Association President
Yes, it is time for a new DA!
10. February 2010 at 2:12 pm
Sounds like one of the insider political consultants has spoken again!
10. February 2010 at 12:42 pm
Au Contraire: our hearts are in the “Wright” place– why doesn’t DA Healey attend Sugar Land City Council Meetings, especially when the Police Chief in depth, publically records to Council his Annual Police Statistical Reports?
10. February 2010 at 12:29 pm
Richard Raymond is so full of himself. He struts around with a smirk on his face that I wonder if he’s as good of a CPA as he is a speller. Have you seen his latest bumper sticker “Everybody Love’s Raymond?” Does he not know anything about copyright infringement or on the use of apostrophe s? I sure hope his knowledge of criminal law is better than his basic grammar!
Not only that, but in his latest mailer, he mispells his opponent’s name several times! What an embarrassment!
10. February 2010 at 10:20 am
That’s interesting that you would defame a man that was cleared fully by the courts. Maybe you need to read some more.
Justicenotpolitics.com
10. February 2010 at 7:03 am
as Mr Healey said in his letter the city paid for the removal of the carport which the Mayor took. Sorry, you can’t do that its illegal.
The Mayor later offered to reimburse the city after he was caught.
I know its embarrassing when you get caught.
9. February 2010 at 8:30 pm
Do your homework (just add the www and stir):
fortbendnow.com/2010/01/28/43604#comment-10295
fbherald.com/articles/2010/01/15/opinion/doc4b5089e42d67c902261192.txt
Justicenotpolitics.com
ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp/2007/270333.pdf
And this from the former friend & FBC bar association president:
Fort Bend District Attorney
accused of abuse of power
It has now been two months since the jury’s swift not guilty verdict in the Jamie Roberts trial. Many of the thoughts contained in this letter were written on the night of the jury’s verdict. I have waited until now to finalize this letter to ensure that I did not simply react to the emotion of the moment, but that my comments could stand the test of deliberate reflection upon the facts.
At the outset, I disclose that I was a member of his defense team assisting lead lawyer Rusty Hardin, Mr. Hardin’s partner Andy Drumheller and Mr. Hardin’s investigator Jim Yarborough. They were an extraordinary defense team whose skills became absolutely necessary due to the prosecution’s total obsession with obtaining Mr. Roberts’ resignation as Mayor or a conviction that would force his resignation.
I am a civil lawyer. The Roberts trial was the first criminal trial in which I have been involved. Though I have not practiced criminal law, I have been privileged to work with and against many of the finest trial lawyers in Texas. I recognize competent, ethical trial tactics and conduct. I recognize unfair, unethical trial tactics and conduct. I recognize the difference between the two. To my great disappointment, I witnessed an abusive, result-oriented prosecution, and an incompetent and tunnel-visioned investigation by a sheriff’s detective, combine to almost destroy the life of a good man. As soon as the verdict was read, one of Jamie’s friends and fellow church members who sat through the trial said, “Thank God.” Another ran up to Jamie and said, “God is good.” To which Jamie responded, “God is indeed good.” Typical of Jamie’s tendency to see the good in everything.
Throughout the trial, just when I thought the prosecution had reached a new low in its abusive tactics, another abusive tactic emerged. The number of abusive tactics are too many to cover in one letter. I will focus only on the first, the prosecution’s decision to initiate a criminal case. The case started with a charge that Mr. Roberts, acting in his official capacity as Mayor of Fulshear, stole two metal carports from Jim Gibson. The crime charged was a specific intent crime. That is, if Mayor Roberts did not intend to deprive Mr. Gibson of Mr. Gibson’s property, then he could not have committed the crime.
The carports in question were two carports of questionable value, whose ownership was seriously in question, that Mr. Roberts believed were located on a Metro Right of Way, on which the City of Fulshear had a license from Metro and had the right to clean and beautify. The carports were an eyesore and had long been the subject of numerous complaints by citizens of Fulshear. The Mayor believed he was simply carrying out his responsibilities and acting within his authority as Mayor to have the carports removed and beautify the City.
Against this backdrop, the dispute should have been nothing more than a civil dispute. Even if the carports belonged to Mr. Gibson and had been taken improperly, the DA knew exactly where they were. One of the carports was in Wharton on the property of the man who moved them. That man has never offered to return the carport and the DA has never asked him to do so. Interestingly he was one of the DA’s star witnesses against Mr. Roberts. The other carport is in the possession of Jessie Montes, the man the Mayor believed to be the owner of the carports at the time they were moved. Mr. Montes offered to give that carport to Mr. Gibson but neither Mr. Gibson nor the DA were interested. Instead, the DA also indicted Mr. Montes. Both carports could have been easily returned, ending the matter. After all, if Mr. Gibson had gotten the carports back, he would have suffered no damage.
However, it became apparent from the outset that the case was not about allegedly stolen carports but all about an attempt by the DA’s office to accomplish for Mr. Roberts’ political enemies what those enemies could not accomplish at the ballot box–getting Mayor Roberts out of office. Shortly after the charges were filed the DA told the Mayor’s first lawyer that the charges would be dropped if Mr. Roberts would resign. What is wrong with this picture? There is no effort to get the property back but only to get the Mayor to resign! When the Mayor refused to resign, the DA assigned not only Mike Elliott, one of his most experienced prosecutors but also 11 year veteran Mark Hanna to conduct the prosecution. And, apparently that was not enough firepower, so the DA’s First Assistant, Fred Felcman, joined in a relentless triple team cross examination of Mr. Roberts during his second grand jury appearance.
As if a top heavy prosecution team of Senior Assistant District Attorneys was not enough, Mr. Roberts also had to face an incompetent, tunnel-visioned investigation by a detective who rushed to judgment and ignored incredibly relevant evidence that Mr. Roberts was just doing his job as Mayor, that he had no intent to violate the law, that the carports did not belong to Mr. Gibson and were not located on Mr. Gibson’s land. At trial, Chief Deputy Craig Brady of the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department testified that in his opinion the investigation demonstrated “gross incompetence” and was “an embarrassment” to him as Chief Deputy and to the Fort Bend Sheriff’s Department as a whole. Unlike the DA, the Sheriff’s office recognized the injustices of the investigation and demoted the investigator.
So, at the outset the DA was evaluating a charge of theft, requiring specific intent, against a highly respected man, a strong family man of impeccable reputation in the community, with a long history of dedicated service as Mayor of Fulshear and President of the Lamar CISD School Board, active and highly respected in his church. The property supposedly stolen were two carports of questionable value, questionable ownership and questionable location, readily available to be returned with no harm to Mr. Gibson. The DA (if he had correctly read the appropriate Metro licensing agreements) should have realized that the City of Fulshear had the right to remove the carports from the Metro right of way and, until a survey was subsequently done, no one could say for sure that the carports were or were not on the Metro right of way. A reasonable DA would have simply arranged for the return of the carports and moved on to matters that deserved the attention of his office. However, Mr. Healey chose not to do so, choosing instead to mount a misguided all out assault to obtain the Mayor’s resignation. When the DA could not get Mr. Roberts to resign, he chose to assign his top three prosecutors to the task of bringing Mr. Roberts down no matter what the cost to the taxpayers (and that cost was enormous), no matter what the cost to Mr. Roberts (once again enormous), no matter what the danger to Mr. Roberts health ( he suffered a heart attack following the indictments), no matter what the impact upon his family (how does one eradicate from the minds of his grandchildren the trauma of his arrest and the humiliation they suffered at their schools) and no matter what the damage to his good name (where does he go to restore his good name?).
In closing, I also disclose that I was President of the Fort Bend County Bar Association at the time that Mr. Healey was appointed by visiting Judge Jim Clawson to replace Jack Stern who was removed from office. Ironically, Mr. Hardin represented Fort Bend County in the removal action upon the request of then County Attorney Bud Childers. After Mr. Hardin successfully obtained a verdict requiring Mr. Stern’s removal, Judge Clawson asked both Mr. Hardin, in his capacity as the county’s lawyer in the matter, and me, in my capacity as Bar Association President, to recommend a replacement District Attorney. After conferring with my executive committee, 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
Former Fort Bend Bar Association President
9. February 2010 at 2:45 pm
DA Healey won the first 2 debates so I’m predicting DA Healey wins w/o a runoff….