Rumours Full of Bullchit-WHO is responsible to PAY Paul Harper for State of Texas Ex Rel George Darrell Best v Paul Reed Harper?The State of Texas!Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas
The judgement went against THE STATE OF TEXAS NOT Darrell Best
Rumours Full of Bullchit-WHO is responsible to PAY Paul Harper for State of Texas Ex Rel George Darrell Best v Paul Reed Harper?The State of Texas!
Andy Lucas took on the case (he could have just ignored it and said that is obvious bullchit; he has said that he didn't have to take it, it was his choice when the Appeals court justices asked him. To be precise, when oral arguments were being held at the 10th court of appeals, one of the justices asked him if he had had to pursue this case. Lucas hemmed and hawed and then admitted he didn't have to do it. He also said at the same time when asked why he did it, that he was concerned that Harper was going to "harm the district". That's far different then his ostensible reason for OPTIONALLY deciding to take up Best's petition and adding a charge of his own, a TOMA violation. Don't believe me? Go ask him yourself and don't let him hornswaggle you) and it became State of Texas ex rel George Darrell Best v Paul Reed Harper. Lucas lost getting Paul removed in January 2015, Paul remained ON the hospital district board he had been elected to. Paul had put in an anti-slapp motion which was denied, appealed the anti-slapp motion to dismiss and ... won.
It is further ordered that Paul Reed Harper is awarded judgment against the State of Texas for Paul Reed Harper’s appellate costs that were paid, if any, by Paul Reed Harper; and all unpaid appellate court cost, if any, is taxed against the State of Texas.
4. Andy Lucas, NOT Darrell Best, did a Motion for a Rehearing, which was DENIED by the Appeals Court recently. The appeals court ruled
We adjudged appellate costs solely against the State of Texas and did not make the relator, George Darrel Best, jointly and severally liable for costs.
Note also that the appeals court corrected the *styling* of the case to show that it is Paul Reed Harper v State of Texas ex rel George Darrell Best
"The parties briefing has caused us to realize that the style of the case used in the opinion and judgement does not properly reflect the parties in this proceeding. Accordingly this order bears the proper style of the appeal.
5. The judgement from the 10th court of appeals is against The State of Texas... ONLY. Note that Darrell Best is NOT INCLUDED.
7.One particularly virulent and irresponsible piece of bullchit is that the most recent monies that Lucas charged the county for were for the original hearing in October of 2014. Here's why that is a lie. First, the original hearing was, before Lucas took it on Best v Harper. Both Harper's attorneys as well as Lucas had the correct styling in the appeal, this is from Andy Lucas filing in June of 2015
In the Motion for Rehearing, which Andy Lucas AS the State of Texas lodged (not Darrell Best), and which was denied by tthe 10th court of appeals, Judge Tom Gray wrote, as noted above, that the correct styling of the appeal was and is Paul Reed Harper v State of Texas ex rel George Darrell Best. (see above)
It defies credulity to believe that the attorneys were billing in those months AFTER the State of Texas LOST for the original case (which started (petition) as Best v Harper and then became State of Texas Ex Rel George Darrell Best v Paul Reed Harper) which had happened in October 2014. AND notice who the attorneys were, from the "Motion for a Rehearing" brief that Andy Lucas put in.
What is the intent of lying about this? In my own mind, it's only to attempt to smear Paul Harper on gossipy and specious grounds, as well as try to avoid responsibility.
Anyone who says anything different is either highly misinformed or lying. Harper has won 3 times and Lucas has lost 3 times. And yet it's not over (so it's okay to hound someone who is legally elected for office for years) and apparently the county commissioners and judge are being kept in the dark, not to mention citizens of Glen Rose.I was told by one of the commissioners that Judge Danny Chambers is saying that Best is responsible, as if it's a private lawsuit between 2 citizens, so is it that he doesn't read, doesn't understand or is deliberately attempting to mislead people? Especially during this budget time when the county has serious financial issues to discuss, why are Chambers and the commissioners dishing out obvious baloney that can be disproven with 5 minutes of actual reading or discussion, along with sources???
Irony from Danny Chambers talking about Luminant's lawsuit
A rarely used provision in the law allows nearly any citizen to seek an elected official’s removal based on incompetence, official misconduct or intoxication.
For example, an Austin man unsuccessfully tried to have the Travis County district attorney removed after her drunken driving arrest in 2013.
But the law builds in layers of protection to prevent frivolous ouster attempts. That’s why a public official — in this case, Wilson — had to join for the suit to survive. Then, a judge — the Supreme Court of Texas assigned Peeples — must agree it has enough merit to move forward.
Two layers of looking at petitions
Patrick Wilson filed paperwork to take control of the case first brought by Hawk’s former employee. He also asked a judge to officially serve the Dallas County district attorney with the lawsuit and indicated that he plans to seek her medical records if the case moves forward.
Wilson’s decision to pursue the case on behalf of the state of Texas, instead of dropping it after he was appointed to consider the allegations, keeps the controversial lawsuit alive — for now.
The case will now go before Judge David Peeples, who has the power to allow it to move toward a jury trial or dismiss it altogether.
Judge David Peeples ruled in favor of Hawk by dismissing the case, which could not be appealed.
P.P.S. I was curious to see what Dallas County Commissioners Court did as far as keeping the Dallas county citizens informed of this, at least that it was happening. Notice that the Dallas County Commissioners Court had meetings on this lawsuit, albeit in executive session, which nonetheless kept every commissioner informed.
P.P.P.S. I went back to look at the *styling* of the case from the start.
1. Darrell Best put in the petition and filed it, paid the court costs to file.
2. Andy Lucas lists himself as Darrell Best's attorney but does not change the styling of the case to State of Texas ex rel until 9/29/2014
3. From the reporter's record which says "State of Texas on the relation of George Darrell Best" October 2014)
4. Andy Lucas attempted, as the State of Texas, to get a TRO to prevent Paul Harper from attending board meetings. The judge denied it.
5. When Andy Lucas wrote his reply brief in response to Paul Harper's appeal on the anti-slapp motion, he was "The State of Texas on the Relation of George Darrell Best (June 2015)
6. AFTER ANDY LUCAS ie, the STATE OF TEXAS LOST, he CHANGED the styling of the case on HIS replies to take out State of Texas.
7. But still alludes to the fact that the State of Texas is the one doing the reply
8. The 10th court of appeals was not confused by this but instead set it right in their ruling which denied State of Texas Motion to Rehear. Notice that the proper style is "State of Texas ex rel George Darrell Best"
The State of Texas has filed a motion for rehearing in this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. We requested a response. Id. 49.2. The parties’ briefing has caused us to realize that the style of the case used in the opinion and judgment does not properly reflect the parties in this proceeding. Accordingly, this order bears the proper style of the appeal. We will not, however, withdraw and re-issue the opinion or judgment based on this technical correction to a non-substantive portion of the opinion or judgment.
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting
Been awhile. Send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks. I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )
I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood.
Is Jacene still involved? I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's....
(What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )