State District Judge Bob Perkins is a partisan Democrat. Throw his ass out!

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
I know just about all the judges in Texas are Republocreeps but let's DO THIS and do this on the up and up.

Tom DeLay needs to be taken down to Chinatown without anyone being able to say he was cheated.

I'm that confident that DeLay's ass is toast.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051022...IHRbo6MwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Judge's Politics Questioned in DeLay Case

By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press WriterSat Oct 22, 4:40 PM ET

State District Judge Bob Perkins took a long vacation before settling in to oversee criminal proceedings that could bring down one of the Republican party's biggest players — U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. When he returned to a media frenzy, he joked that he should have stayed in Italy.

"Judges tend to be hesitant about taking real high publicity cases," he said. "It definitely complicates your life."

It got more complicated Friday, when DeLay appeared in court on conspiracy and money laundering charges. DeLay's legal team filed motions asking the judge to recuse himself because of his multiple donations to Democratic candidates and organizations, including 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry and Moveon.org, a liberal interest group waging a "Fire Tom DeLay" campaign through radio ads.

"He's an active Democrat, as he has every right to be," said DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin, a self-described yellow dog Democrat. "But he has supported causes and persons that have been in direct opposition to Congressman Delay."

DeLay is accused of circumventing state election law to funnel corporate money into the 2002 Texas legislative races. The fundraising helped the GOP gain control of the Texas House and set the stage for lawmakers to adopt a new congressional district map that put more Texas Republicans in Congress.

Perkins gave to MoveOn.org last year, before the group's DeLay campaign.

He made it clear in court that he didn't believe his political contributions would hinder his ability to preside over the case, but he agreed to delay proceedings until another judge decides if he should stay. Judge B.B. Schraub, a Republican, is expected to review the motion within two weeks.

Perkins, 57, told The Associated Press he supports Democrats because "it's my belief that the common man, people in the middle class and people that are poor, if they're going to get any help, there's more chance that they're going to get it from Democrats."

But he wasn't always a Democrat.

As a 16-year-old growing up in the U.S.-Mexico border town of Eagle Pass, Perkins campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The teenager was drawn to Goldwater's tough foreign policy notions. Goldwater lost to Texas Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 election.

Perkins also counts Republican Teddy Roosevelt among his idols. The avid history buff easily recounts Roosevelt's populist ideas and eventual break from the existing Republican establishment to form the Bull Moose party.

His ideas began to change when he moved to Austin to attend to the University of Texas, where he graduated from law school in 1973. During college, Perkins, who speaks Spanish with a near flawless accent, liked to hang out in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood. It reminded him of home and it's where he met his first wife.

Friends there persuaded Perkins to make his first run for public office, a 1974 bid for justice of the peace, as a Democrat. They liked the idea of a bilingual attorney representing the 65,000-person precinct, he said. Perkins won.

Since then, Perkins has presided mainly over murder trials, but he has also overseen high-profile cases involving politicians.

In 1992, he fined former House Speaker Gib Lewis, a Democrat, $2,000 after Lewis pleaded no contest to failing to disclose a business investment on campaign finance reports. Perkins said he considered that Lewis did not plan to run for re-election.

In a 1995 case involving Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record), Perkins recused himself because he had made a $300 campaign contribution to her Democratic opponent. Hutchinson was acquitted of official misconduct and record-tampering charges.

DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, also represented Hutchison, and he filed the motion that led to Perkins recusing himself in her case. District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat heading up the investigation against DeLay, was also the prosecutor in Hutchison's case.

Roy Minton, a longtime Austin attorney who has argued cases before Perkins, said he has been impressed with the judge's knowledge of law.

"I've never felt that he was making a decision ... based on his personal feelings of the defendant," said Minton, a Democrat representing Republican Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, who was subpoenaed by one of the grand juries investigating DeLay.

But DeGuerin said that's not enough.

"A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety," he said.
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
Here you go, mother fucker. a link to the big bucks that judge has donated to the subeversive orgs.

Link
I agree. Throw him out.
All DeLay's ass is belong to his cell mate no matter what judge presides over the case, LOL!
 
This is typical maneuvering by DeLay's attorneys. A judge's political donations do not mean he can't serve as an impartial jurist.
I was more interested in an AP story that came out perhaps two weeks ago, right after DeLay was first indicted by the grand jury. The story started hot, promising all kinds of inside stuff, but after three or four paragraphs it was clear DeLay's money shuffling was no different from what Sen. Harry Reid has been doing for years in Nevada. You give money to Reid, it might end up getting funneled to another candidate in another state. Ditto with DeLay.
And if Reid and DeLay are doing it, it's almost a dead solid cinch most every other elected member of Congress is doing the same thing.
 
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ham Murabi posted something correct. I bet he sucked off a liberal quite well for those notes.

Seriously though, I find it quite laughable that the Democrats are planning to run against Republicans on an anti-corruption platform.

1992, anyone?
 
LovingTongue said:
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ham Murabi posted something correct. I bet he sucked off a liberal quite well for those notes.

Seriously though, I find it quite laughable that the Democrats are planning to run against Republicans on an anti-corruption platform.

1992, anyone?

To the contrary, I didn't post anything that was "correct." I posted what is common knowledge to the most casual observer of the courts.
As for who you are sucking off, I'd rather not know.
 
Ham Murabi said:
To the contrary, I didn't post anything that was "correct." I posted what is common knowledge to the most casual observer of the courts.
As for who you are sucking off, I'd rather not know.
Common knowledge implies correct in that it is true and not false.

It's amazing how little you comprehend.
 
Ham Murabi said:
This is typical maneuvering by DeLay's attorneys. A judge's political donations do not mean he can't serve as an impartial jurist.
I was more interested in an AP story that came out perhaps two weeks ago, right after DeLay was first indicted by the grand jury. The story started hot, promising all kinds of inside stuff, but after three or four paragraphs it was clear DeLay's money shuffling was no different from what Sen. Harry Reid has been doing for years in Nevada. You give money to Reid, it might end up getting funneled to another candidate in another state. Ditto with DeLay.
And if Reid and DeLay are doing it, it's almost a dead solid cinch most every other elected member of Congress is doing the same thing.

The law in question is a Texas state law. Are corporations in Nevada and elsewhere prohibited from contributing to campaigns?
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
The law in question is a Texas state law. Are corporations in Nevada and elsewhere prohibited from contributing to campaigns?

Perhaps. But the charge against DeLay apparently wasn't even a law at the time he is alleged to have broken it.
 
Not from what I've heard. Texas is no friend of campaign finance restrictions, but the one big no-no here is corporate contributions to campaigns. It's supposedly been on the books over 100 years. There may have been recent tweaking, though. I haven't followed it closely. They may also be arguing the Texas-to-Washington-to-Texas money switcheroo isn't technically illegal. Dunno.
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
Not from what I've heard. Texas is no friend of campaign finance restrictions, but the one big no-no here is corporate contributions to campaigns. It's supposedly been on the books over 100 years. There may have been recent tweaking, though. I haven't followed it closely. They may also be arguing the Texas-to-Washington-to-Texas money switcheroo isn't technically illegal. Dunno.

It's a conspiracy charge, not the actual acceptance of corporate money. Everything I've read says it's got every chance that OJ does of finding the real killer of his ex-missus.
 
Gringao said:
It's a conspiracy charge, not the actual acceptance of corporate money. Everything I've read says it's got every chance that OJ does of finding the real killer of his ex-missus.

There are two charges - conspiracy and money laundering. And to allege conspiracy, there has to be an allegation of an illegal objective, right? Conspiring to do x, where x is something illegal.

I need one of those attorneys who whispers in your ear all the time.
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
There are two charges - conspiracy and money laundering. And to allege conspiracy, there has to be an allegation of an illegal objective, right? Conspiring to do x, where x is something illegal.

I need one of those attorneys who whispers in your ear all the time.

The indictment Monday came as DeLay lawyers were filing a motion arguing that last week's conspiracy indictment was faulty because in 2002, the conspiracy law did not apply to the election statute. The Legislature changed the law the next year.
 
Gringao said:

Good article. The article makes it seem that Delay's not necessarily off the hook despite the the legislature having passed a statute making the conspiracy law apply explicitly to the election statute, though. And that's not even considering the second charge.
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
Good article. The article makes it seem that Delay's not necessarily off the hook despite the the legislature having passed a statute making the conspiracy law apply explicitly to the election statute, though. And that's not even considering the second charge.

The second charge is the one that the prosecutor couldn't get the jury that heard all the evidence to issue a true bill on, despite having mulled it over for months. He took it to another grand jury and slammed with with evidence for a few hours and got a true bill just before the statute of limitations ran out.

Not exactly a rock-solid indictment.
 
That's true. Makes it look pretty shaky.

It'll be interesting: anti-corruption crusader vs. the most powerful man in Texas (aside from our Pres of course).
 
Back
Top