Fort Bend County House District 27 challenger Ron Reynolds is accusing 11-year incumbent Doro Olivo of “deceiving voters” by claiming a false endorsement from long-time District 139 State Representative Sylvester Turner.
Reynolds will face Olivo tomorrow in the Democratic Primary.
”We are facing critical times in our lives and communities, and we need our elected leaders to be honest, accountable, accessible and effective,” said Reynolds, who claims that Turner has chosen not to endorse any candidate in the race.
Olivo, who lists Turner on her website among other endorsements, stands by the endorsement.
“I am very careful about my endorsements,” said Olivo, who added that she called Turner to confirm the endorsement. “He did endorse me. I don’t take that for granted, I wouldn’t do that with anybody.”
Olivo said there was a “mix-up” with a quote on her campaign literature. She said there was a quote by Turner that she was told later he didn’t approve.
“I apologize for that,” said Olivo. “He is a good man. I admire Mr. Turner.”
Turner has not returned multiple calls for comment on the issue.
What’s really amazing truthseeker is the fact that so many fall for the finger pointing at those getting the information out as a campaign tactic and try to make that the wrong doing. If these candidates, not just Reynolds, have major problems then the public has every right to know about it before they vote and handle our tax dollars. I for one am glad people do not keep these things quiet.
Why does this matter so much to Reynolds? What is the big deal? This last effort to overshadow his past BS is not working.
Reasonable? Of course, I am reasonable. Just because I have a difference of opinion from your or others regarding Dora does not change whether I’m reasonable or not. I am satisfied that you are reasonable whether you agree with me on every issue or not.
Very good points all tired!
“Reynolds has lied about his community involvement, I wonder which
desperate Rovian tactic he’ll use to accuse Olivo of on that one?”
I personally know, as you do, that several of his claimed involvements are false. We do NOT need this type of representation in office.
This being the key statement:
“Does District 27 want a state representative whose best claim is that he wasn’t completely disbarred?”
Get out and vote today folks. Politricks is in full swing and needs to be answered!
Factually I used to think you were a reasonable person but the public has every right to know the facts about the candidates in a public election. Mr Reynolds has way too much baggage and pointing the finger at the opposition is a tired old tactic. It is Mr. Reynolds responsibility and he has neglected to even address these many, many issues from the TEC record violations to the civil case to the Bar complaints. As a matter of fact and according to the media he has continued to point the finger and blame his opponent:
COLUMN:Glossing over
District 27 challenger underplays his State Bar penalty
By Bob Haenel
Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:31 AM CST
Let me say up front, I made a mistake in a column on Jan. 27 with the vote count in the 2008 District 27 representative race.
I gave incumbent Dora Olivo too many votes, and challenger Ron Reynolds not enough.
In actuality, Olivo defeated Reynolds by 147 votes.
A slim margin, to be sure, and the catchphrase of the column “What Was I Thinking?” more accurately described my calculations, which were a regrettable mistake on my part.
However, the premise of that portion of the column still stands.
Reynolds could not defeat the incumbent Olivo despite the presence of a very popular Barack Obama on the Democratic Party ballot.
I had the honor of being one of the panelists at the Fort Bend Democrats Club candidates’ debate last Wednesday, and Reynolds and Olivo were the marquee pair at the event.
Co-panelist Bev Carter of the Star newspaper asked Reynolds about his sanction by the State Bar of Texas, the “thousand-pound gorilla in the room,” she phrased it.
Rather than being taken aback, Reynolds relished the question, reaching for satchel filled with photos and displays to show his post-sanction accomplishments.
Indeed, Reynolds said it was a mistake by a young attorney, paying little attention to the details.
Apparently, he had come prepared for the question.
Carter continued by peppering Olivo with questions about embryonic stem cell research, which Olivo opposed, and legislation regarding required ultrasounds prior to abortions.
Hmmmm. Was it a setup? Reynolds just happens to be vice president of the club…
Doesn’t matter.
Reynolds treated the action taken by the State Bar District No. 4F 12 Grievance Committee as if it was no big deal, but it was. Actually, it was three big deals, and one of them came with a price tag.
Reynolds didn’t just make one mistake, he was judged on three mistakes and had to sit out a year as an attorney, surrendering his law license from April 1, 2005, to March 30, 2006. He remained on active suspension (probation) through March 31, 2009.
That means he was on probation when he ran against Olivo the first time, and is only now less than a year out of hot water.
Completing probation was grounds for celebration for Reynolds, but certainly not grounds for a flippant dismissal of the three cases that placed him on the legal sidelines for a year.
Twice, Reynolds lost lawsuits for separate clients because he failed to respond to motions for summary judgments against his clients. Both lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice — meaning thecases can’t be refiled — and he didn’t notify his clients to inform them, either.
In the third case, he repeatedly failed to follow through with his client to inform him of the outcome
and actions needed to be taken, including having his client sign a final accounting and distributing of
funds settlement statement.
In one of those first two cases, the former client sued Reynolds and his firm, Brown, Brown &
Reynolds, Houston, and not only received a jury award of $100,000, but also $50,000 in punitive
damages after the jury finding of malice in the case.
Reynolds forgot to pull that out of his briefcase last Wednesday.
Here’s the question: Does District 27 want a state representative whose best claim is that he wasn’t completely disbarred?
Oh my, my; according to a local political blog who does thorough research, the campaign of Olivo’s anti-Reynolds antics in this political campaign has taken another twist; a very low one.
Since in my humble opinion, Dora has stooped to playing “dirty politics” in order to win rather than winning on the issues, thus making the issue be her opponent rather than showcasing her “own record”; and so, therefore, if Dora should win again, I will be following very closely to see how and who her votes impact and to what benefit which , heretofore, I have been asleep and lulled into passiveness to not really pay attention. Yet, Mrs. Olivo has fought so desperately to thwart the challenger, Ron Reynolds, it has stirred my curiosity about why if someone has “truly” been effective, why would “dirty politics’ become necessary? I look forward to seeing her finally author some bills and to what benefit it does.
Factually Speaking,
A check of Ron Reynolds campaign finance reports will provide some
real facts about his Republican supporters. His camp is
playing the Karl Rove card (blame the opposition for what
you are guilty of) out of desperation.
If you find your facts in Reynolds campaign documents, you may want to go to official or verifiable sources of Information, not the mis-information spread by Reynolds campaign documents.
Reynolds has lied constantly about who supports him, to the point that
one person threatened legal action against Reynolds if he did it again. Now Reynolds is calling Olivo dishonest??????. The Sylvester Turner endorsement is obviously not false. Reynolds has lied so much about his supporters, that again, now he is grasping at the desperate attempt to try to make her guilty of what he’s been guilty of all along.
Reynolds has lied about his community involvement, I wonder which
desperate Rovian tactic he’ll use to accuse Olivo of on that one?
Ron Reynold’s transgressions are far from open and transparent, and
as scary as the prospect of him representing anyone is, there ARE more
transgressions. Maybe that is why Reynolds has chosen to use the
very desperate (and right wing) Rovian tactics to try and discredit Olivo during these last hours.
Reynolds will not make his lies true, or fix his ongoinging “transgressions” by desperately blaming Dora Olivo or anyone else for his wrong doings. If he has proven anything at all, it is that he has not been honest, accountable, accessible or effective as an attorney. His own track record indicates that he would not be that way as anyone’s representative.
Best of Luck Representative Dora Olivo!
I think this description by Bob Haenel pretty much summarizes this political battle and how much of it has been staged. Watching Mr. Reynolds play victim after all those he victimized, I find just a little disingenuous. I also appreciate having all the facts before voting so I don’t know that I would agree with anyone trying to silence all these problems with the challenger. He isn’t someone I have any faith in as an elected official or someone seeking that office. Good luck Ms. Olivo!
“In one of those first two cases, the former client sued Reynolds and his firm, Brown, Brown &
Reynolds, Houston, and not only received a jury award of $100,000, but also $50,000 in punitive
damages after the jury finding of malice in the case.
Reynolds forgot to pull that out of his briefcase last Wednesday.
Here’s the question: Does District 27 want a state representative whose best claim is that he wasn’t completely disbarred?”
So, now–we have all been informed about Ron’s transgressions via the deliberate efforts of Dora who made sure we all knew.
Help me out here—because I’m in a quandary, if the opposing party helped Dora who is, supposedly, a Democrat play “dirty politics” against another Democrats, what say you about Dora? Is she a Democrat or is she a Republican disguised a Democrat? Is she honest or is she a hypocrite?
Can she be trusted if she is playing high jinxes with the opposing party?
In my humble opinion, at this point, Ron’s transgressions are open and transparent; however, on the other hand Dora’s are yet to be revealed.
I do not think anyone can with great confidence “hiss-boo” Ron without knowing the full details of how and why Dora “Joe Lieberman” Olivo is receiving assistance from the opposing party to defeat another candidate within Dora’s own political party. What’s that about?
“….and we need our elected leaders to be honest, accountable, accessible and effective,” Ron Reynolds words should have been followed by a loud chocking noise…choking on his words!
Lets see if there is room to list some of his anything but honest, accountable, accessible and effective behavior. contained in the
article,
and the actual court documents – Original Evidentiary Petition, Consent to Judgement, and Agreed Judgement of Partially Probated Suspension HO120316864, HO010410145, HO110419048, and HO20519586:
from which the following is taken (this is only one of the actions against Reynolds):
From H0205I9586 Page 2
RULE VIOLATIONS
The acts and/or omissions of Respondent described above constitute conduct in violation of the following Rules of the TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
• 1.01(B)(2) [in respresenting a client, frequently failing to carry out completely the obligations owed to a client or clients];
• 1.03(a) failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information];
• 1.03(b) [failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation]:
• 1.14(a) [failing to hold funds and other property belonging in whole or part to clients or third persons in a lawyer’s possession separate from the lawyer’s own property];
• 1.14(b) [upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, failing to promptly notify the client or third person]; and
• 8.04(a)(3) [engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation].
….and that is just ONE the FOUR cases that cost Reynolds his license for 15 months and 2 overlapping probations completed June 30,2009.
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should trust Ron Reynolds with their vote.
Oh, and there is this matter of not filing his 2008 campaign reports with the Texas ETHICS Commission until January 2010, just about the time his campaign heated up for his 2010 run for TX House District 27. The TX ETHICS Commission fined him $10,000 plus $100 per day to the maximum. I don’t understand why anyone would vote for Ron Reynolds except maybe that you want to look forward to anything but honest, accountable, accessible, accountable and effective representation.
Do yourself a favor and READ those documents. The suspensions are the actions that the Texas Bar took against Reynolds because of what Reynolds did to ordinary citizens.
I wonder why Rep Olivo felt she had to do this?
I wonder why Reynolds is carrying Carreon’s name on his support list and Hunters. Neither has endorsed him. Doesn’t he care about accuracy either?
Did anyone mention his area record for a TEC fine for this year of $10,500. Yes honesty would be a nice thing. I agree!
Yes we do need more honest politicians:
COLUMN:Glossing over
District 27 challenger underplays his State Bar penalty
By Bob Haenel
Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:31 AM CST
Let me say up front, I made a mistake in a column on Jan. 27 with the vote count in the 2008 District 27 representative race.
I gave incumbent Dora Olivo too many votes, and challenger Ron Reynolds not enough.
In actuality, Olivo defeated Reynolds by 147 votes.
A slim margin, to be sure, and the catchphrase of the column “What Was I Thinking?” more accurately described my calculations, which were a regrettable mistake on my part.
However, the premise of that portion of the column still stands.
Reynolds could not defeat the incumbent Olivo despite the presence of a very popular Barack Obama on the Democratic Party ballot.
I had the honor of being one of the panelists at the Fort Bend Democrats Club candidates’ debate last Wednesday, and Reynolds and Olivo were the marquee pair at the event.
Co-panelist Bev Carter of the Star newspaper asked Reynolds about his sanction by the State Bar of Texas, the “thousand-pound gorilla in the room,” she phrased it.
Rather than being taken aback, Reynolds relished the question, reaching for satchel filled with photos and displays to show his post-sanction accomplishments.
Indeed, Reynolds said it was a mistake by a young attorney, paying little attention to the details.
Apparently, he had come prepared for the question.
Carter continued by peppering Olivo with questions about embryonic stem cell research, which Olivo opposed, and legislation regarding required ultrasounds prior to abortions.
Hmmmm. Was it a setup? Reynolds just happens to be vice president of the club…
Doesn’t matter.
Reynolds treated the action taken by the State Bar District No. 4F 12 Grievance Committee as if it was no big deal, but it was. Actually, it was three big deals, and one of them came with a price tag.
Reynolds didn’t just make one mistake, he was judged on three mistakes and had to sit out a year as an attorney, surrendering his law license from April 1, 2005, to March 30, 2006. He remained on active suspension (probation) through March 31, 2009.
That means he was on probation when he ran against Olivo the first time, and is only now less than a year out of hot water.
Completing probation was grounds for celebration for Reynolds, but certainly not grounds for a flippant dismissal of the three cases that placed him on the legal sidelines for a year.
Twice, Reynolds lost lawsuits for separate clients because he failed to respond to motions for summary judgments against his clients. Both lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice — meaning thecases can’t be refiled — and he didn’t notify his clients to inform them, either.
In the third case, he repeatedly failed to follow through with his client to inform him of the outcome
and actions needed to be taken, including having his client sign a final accounting and distributing of
funds settlement statement.
In one of those first two cases, the former client sued Reynolds and his firm, Brown, Brown &
Reynolds, Houston, and not only received a jury award of $100,000, but also $50,000 in punitive
damages after the jury finding of malice in the case.
Reynolds forgot to pull that out of his briefcase last Wednesday.
Here’s the question: Does District 27 want a state representative whose best claim is that he wasn’t
completely disbarred?
That’s funny he’s accusing her of a false endorsement and he claims a commissioner candidate endorsement on his website that is non-existent. Aren’t election entertaining.