Susan Criss and Linda Yanez Stiff Media

Criss has been reversed for violating the press's First Amendment right to report the shenanigans going on in Criss' kangaroo court:

The Texas Constitution affirmatively grants the rights to freedom of speech and of the press: “Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege . . . .” Tex. Const. art. I, §8. … Similarly, article I, section 8, provides that “no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.” Tex. Const. art. I, § 8. … Government-imposed secrecy denies the free flow of information and ideas not only to the press but also to the public. … The trial court restricted the discharged jurors’ right to speak to “the press, media, or others,” because it concluded that the additional, incremental publicity would cause imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process by making it even more difficult to empanel a jury. … Further, the trial court’s conclusion that voir dire would be inconvenient does not satisfy the Davenport standard. … The trial court was not concerned about the media harassing the jurors. There exists no concern about protecting the secrecy of juror deliberations because the trial ended before the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, without any jury deliberations. We conclude that the gag order in this case is unconstitutional under article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.

Now it appears that Criss campaign mouthpiece Vince Liebowitz at CapitolAnnex makes the excellent point that Linda Yanez has also failed to show the proper respect for the media's blogger cousins:

Yes, there are political websites that do paid content. But they aren’t blogs, and Yanez should know better than to say that they are. It is nothing more than a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to paint the Blogosphere as a bunch of paid political hacks.

Liebowitz knows what he's talking about because he often runs long word-for-word excerpts from Criss campaign press releases with Liebowitz's "bloguritation" being published at the same moment those press releases are released as paid campaign advertisements elsewhere. It is no wonder Liebowitz gets "inside" scoop from the Criss campaign.

Sounds like neither Criss nor Yanez loves the media as much as they should!

Vote to re-elect Phil Johnson to the Texas Supreme Court.

Mid-January Campaign Finance Reports

The campaign finance reports are out in this race and they are interesting.

Appeals Court Justice Linda Yanez is reporting $78,289.38.

Trial court judge Susan Criss is reporting $260.057.

Supreme Court Justice Phil Johnson is reporting $122,260.79.

Interestingly, both Yanez and Criss are getting flack.

Over at the Criss campaign's first choice for leaking dirt to the blog-o-sphere, there is an excellent report that Yanez is spending too much money on food for campaign meetings:

I was taking a random look-see at campaign finance reports after being struck down with some pretty bad bronchial symptoms yesterday, and came across Linda Yanez’s finance reports for her tenure on the 13th Court of Appeals.

One thing that struck me was that Yanez seems to eat out a lot. A whole lot. Between 2001 and 2005, Yanez spent campaign funds–over $11,000 worth–on meals. The Olive Garden, Logan’s, Luby’s, and Blue Shell in McAllen seemed to be favorites–as was the Cornerstone Grill in her hometown of Edinburg.

On the other hand, Criss's problem isn't where she spending the campaign cash but who she's soliciting it from. Criss is reporting $317,000, but is getting some flack about how much of that cash is from lawyers with BP cases and other business currently pending in her court.

Since Criss has invited skeptics to "take another look at her finances," I did.

If you leave aside the lawyers supporting Criss and the in-kind contributions from the Democratic Party, Criss is reporting only $12,601.57.

If you exclude contributions from unions which Criss's father is associated with, the Criss's fund-raising figure drops to $8,471.51.

The fact that so much of Criss's campaign cash comes from lawyers is not, by itself, worrisome because it is lawyers, after all, who know the judicial candidates best (in fact, most of Justice Johnson's money is from lawyers and I suspect the same is true of Yanez).

What is alarming is the percentage of Criss's contributions from lawyers with big cases in Criss's court:

For example, Ernest Cannon just settled the most recent BP case where Criss was the judge, and Cannon gave Criss $5,000.

The Alexander law firm has a number of BP cases as a result of running ads to gather up those cases, gave another $5,000.

Rob Ammons is another lawyer with many BP cases currently before Criss, and he and his firm gave Criss $5,250.

Alton Todd's law firm brags about its BP cases in the firm website, and he and his firm gave Criss $5,750.

James Nebout's firm website brags about having over 85 BP cases, and he and his firm have Criss $10,750.

Brent Coon settled the only other BP case that has been tried so far, and he has 100 other BP cases, and his law firm gave Criss another $1,000.

Ron Krist, who made headlines when Criss let him flip from representing BP plaintiffs to representing BP in her court, gave Criss another $10,000.

The Provost Umphrey firm's website brags about its BP cases, and the firm and its lawyers gave Criss $15,500.

But most alarmingly, John Eddie Williams, who has has a whole website devoted to BP litigation where he brags about having 150 BP cases, gave Criss a whopping $25,700.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a nice editorial wrap up of Criss's BP-gate find-raising scandal:

Criss' campaign cash

Maybe they like the way Galveston District Judge Susan Criss has ruled on their lawsuits? Or they hope they will benefit from her decisions, sometime in the near future?

We only can speculate why a horde of plaintiff's lawyers with cases currently pending before Criss, who is running for Texas' Supreme Court, felt compelled to stuff tens of thousands of dollars into her campaign.

But thanks to the wonders of electronic campaign finance disclosure and the Internet, we now know that it is so. Voters can draw their own conclusions.

At issue is what Criss does when she isn't on the campaign trail. In her day job seated on the District Court in Galveston, currently she is presiding over hundreds of potentially lucrative personal injury lawsuits against oil giant BP stemming from the 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery.

Of the more than $260,000 Criss reported raised for the campaign in the last six months of 2007, almost all came from South Texas plaintiff's lawyers. Many of them are the same ones who have been aggressively courting and cultivating those BP cases assigned to her Galveston court.

Among Judge Criss' most loyal supporters are BP-focused plaintiff's outfits including Williams Kherker ($25,000), Burwell Burwell & Nebout ($10,750), the Krist Law Firm ($10,000), Bailey Perrin Bailey ($7,500), and the Alexander Law Firm ($5,000).

All of the above have filed more than a few cases against the company. If we believe their marketing rhetoric, they remain on the hunt for Texas City plaintiffs.

Here's the rub: more than any other member of the Texas bench, Judge Criss' management of her BP cases promises to have a serious impact on the eventual "value" of all BP explosion lawsuits against the company.