The following is written from my perspective as the wife of Paul Harper. I do not speak for him (he writes on my blog under the name pharper)  but i do admire him greatly for fighting himself against nonsense) but rather I am discussing the state of faulty journalism in a paper of record, where one should ASSUME that the community at large should be adequately informed.

 From the Best v Harper documents

Andy Lucas, Somervell County Attorney, filed a motion last week for 

"State of Texas Application for Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Hearing for Temporary Orders"

On the morning of the 15th, there was an emergency telephone hearing with the judge in the CIVIL case of Best v Harper to try to keep my husband, Paul Harper, from being able to participate in a hospital board meeting. Ron Hankins, one of the other board members, even filed an affidavit, not based on facts, but his opinion. (GO READ HIS AFFIDAVIT and ask yourself if you would want someone accusing YOU of something not based on facts but what they think *might* happen.) The judge did not grant this. To put it another way, the attempt to keep an ELECTED OFFICIAL from participating in a meeting FAILED.  And that included Ron Hankins attempts to do so via his vague *Minority Report* style affidavit, guess he does not believe in being a good board member who wants to get along with the others (because insinuating others are Nazis is SUCH A GOOD TACTIC), maintain decorum, or show respect even where people disagree. Does Ron Hankins REALLY think his actions against other board members and how he behaves at board meetings really promotes the best interests of the hospital district???? Awful-again, go WATCH the videos of how Ron Hankins acts at board meetings. 

How would YOU know about this? ONLY HERE. I looked for this in the newspaper, also online on social media, since it occurred last week, and... CRICKETS. It seems to me that Brent Addleman, in particular, only prints negative information regarding my husband Paul Harper, why did he not put in ANYTHING ANYWHERE about this blatant attempt to keep a lawfully elected board member from being able to attend a board meeting? (Was he mad because he had to correct something he got wrong previously that apparently was used as gospel for the CIVIL lawsuit against Paul?)  The judge ALREADY RULED previously on Jan 8 2015  that the state (Andy Lucas) had not proven its burden to keep Paul off the board, and he said, basically, that Paul was ELECTED, whether everybody agreed with him or not. Guess what, Paul would not have been elected if a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE had not agreed with him, at least on some things (he got MORE votes than Ron Hankins!) . Or maybe the Democracy haters really only want Stuffed Dogs nodding heads sitting on any elected board. If so, then don't those Democracy haters really just want to appoint cronies, let's do away with any pretend votes, because it MUST BE THAT EVERYONE MUST MARCH IN LOCKSTEP.  I hope that sounds as utterly ridiculous to you as it does to me. 

Update: FINALLY Addleman has put something both for the published paper online and on Facebook, about 11:00 TODAY 1/19/2015.. how many days later??? He posted FIVE TIMES on Facebook right after that hearing in which Paul was put back on the board that he was still subject to a jurty trail. FIVE SEPARATE TIMES. But without explicitly noting that, since this is a CIVIL CASE, it's not up the judge to bring a jury trial but Andy Lucas, EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE SAID FOR THE TEMPORARY HEARING THAT HE HADN'T MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF. So why is Addleman SO eager to keep on repeating this innuendo but was so slow to mention that the temporary restraining order that Lucas brought and Ron Hankins put an affidavit for?

Believe me, because I was in attendance at both hearings, Lucas REALLY TRIED to not only get hub off the board but KEEP him off.  Lucas wanted him to stay off until a jury trial that it is LUCAS'S OPTION to call. Suppose he never did, until the very end of Paul's term, would that be FAIR???) That included not only EVERYTHING that's listed in the case (which is ONLY three main items, do YOU know what they are?) , but all the other stuff that Paul has done in his life, including having a HEART ATTACK, that Lucas chose to bring up. (I guess you can also tell that I personally was appalled that that would be a factor in trying to prove someone is incompetent, what a disgusting low blow.). 

If you are not sure WHAT Best is suing Harper for, instead of speculating or listening to BS (or, as I'm saying here, not even KNOWING because the newspaper of record doesn't even mention some of this), go READ THE CASE.  (You DO know this is a CIVIL case and not a criminal case, yes???)

Further, would you even KNOW that Ray Reynolds and Darrell Best both testified in the hearing on October 20th, 2014? Or that I, "salon* did on January 8, 2015? There was not even ONE SENTENCE about the FACT that we all testfied, what we testified about, what was said, or what both sides of the attorneys said. Do YOU know what Ray Reynolds said in his testimony? No? How about Best? No? Do you know what Paul's attorneys asked them and how they answered? No?  How about me? No? About me, I testified that what the plaintiff was claiming about how my husband REALLY wrote a post instead of me was utterly 0. In fact, when Andy Lucas did his sumup on January 8, 2015 to try to KEEP Paul off the board, he didn't even MENTION the specious claim in the lawsuit about my post that was being 0ly attributed to my husband, probably because it's really easy to prove it's baloney. 

And you can believe, since they went to the extent of bringing up a HEART ATTACK (yes, I'm offended) where Paul was treated at Lake Granbury (which has a cath lab, and which heart attack happened a year before Paul was even elected)  as a reason to keep him off the board, that they tried EVERY SINGLE INNUENDO THEY COULD, including something Paul did over 25 years ago that was dismissed. (If THAT's the standard, then let's run Alan Sumners out of town on a rail-Go READ THAT post and WATCH the video). (Would you know, for example, from the photo at right that this is a CIVIL CASE or would you possibly believe this is CRIMINAL CASE, which it is NOT?)   Everybody knows that expression about throwing a bucket of mud against the wall to see what sticks, right? Don't even get me started about the minutes stuff. Ray Reynolds testified that he had NO minutes for the 501a corporation. Hello???? If you, like me, have been trying to get open records from the hospital for years, you KNOW what a poor dang job they were doing. 

Yet, Addlemen spent PLENTY of time, not to include anything Paul's lawyer said, to put in a transcript of Lucas and Harper. HOW ONE-SIDED. Maybe to be fair (oh, WHAT'S THAT??????), people should go ask Addleman to put at least SOMETHING to indicate what Ray Reynolds and Darrell Best and Debbie Harper actually SAID before everyone wants to go grab pitchforks and torches and run like a mob through the town? Or maybe you're the type that doesn't really want honestly to look at the facts, try to figure out what really happened, and don't care if a paper of record only presents one side of an issue. Or maybe you prefer whispering compaigns where people make stuff up but no one attempts to find out if it's 1. 

Anyway, the FACT is that, despite the FACT that the judge said they didn't prove their burden, and reminded them that whether one likes what elected officials say or do, they're still ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, Andrew Lucas and Ron Hankins STILL TRIED TO KEEP HIM OFF via that emergency hearing, and FAILED in their attempt to keep Paul from going to a meeting. Not only do I wonder WHY the taxpayers of Somervell County are putting up with this, but why this is acceptable from a CIVIL LAWSUIT? 

And not that I mind that you have to come here, to MY BLOG Somervell County Salon to find out about this, but SHAME on the GLEN ROSE REPORTER  for not putting ANYTHING about this in their so-called paper of record. (Maybe it's because their *well-placed source* didn't want anyone to KNOW????) If someone comes along years from now to find out details about those hearings, will they KNOW about me, Ray Reynolds or Darrell Best, that we even testified or, again, WHAT WE SAID or the LAWYERS ASKED and HOW WE ANSWERED? Nope. It's a travesty, in my book. 

Update 1/21/2015: I was irate about the above, and after, thinking about it, having posted about this here first on Sunday, decided to contact ,on Monday,  Addleman's boss, David Compton, who is not only Brent's boss but publisher of the Brownwood Bulletin, Stephenville Empire -Tribune and possibly some others. I called on the phone around noon of 1/19/2015 to speak to Compton, . Because I got voice mail, I sent an email to him about what I consider to be VERY poor journalistic practices on the part of Brent Addleman. He called me back on the phone within the next hour and we had a pleasant conversation, but one in which I was firm in saying, that I expected that this would be fixed.. immediately. Instead it appears that Mr Compton has pushed off any type of correction or clarification to at least a week from now, leaving yet another week for 0 impressions to fester.  NOT a responsible action  Although Best v Harper is not a civil case against me personally, because Mr Best has alleged something that is so utterly 0 as part of his so-called *evidence* against Paul that involves me (Paul's wife), I believe that a newspaper of record has an obligation to make sure that they don't just put out *one summary of events* but AT LEAST be well rounded enough to include other relevant pieces. Otherwise, what does differentiate this from Yellow Journalism?