tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post74812947756837520..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: The sad and disgraceful case of Judge Samuel KentGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45734903920482634742008-10-14T11:33:00.000-05:002008-10-14T11:33:00.000-05:00Judge Kent is a verr respectful judge. I live in G...Judge Kent is a verr respectful judge. I live in Galveston and know judge kent. This is just a money hungry women who is lying and wants attention. Judge Kent has done alot for Galveston and if you dont know all the facts dont talk down on him. He is a innocent man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-51052260947016476772008-10-14T08:01:00.000-05:002008-10-14T08:01:00.000-05:00And while we are discussing the acts of judges, ho...And while we are discussing the acts of judges, how about the ethically challenged sweetheart deal Jeanne Meurer created for herself in Travis County. I am surprised this has not gotten more attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47828419178983796642008-10-13T22:16:00.000-05:002008-10-13T22:16:00.000-05:00Yet another reason Federal judges should not recei...Yet another reason Federal judges should not receive life terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-18815155729162658362008-10-13T17:36:00.000-05:002008-10-13T17:36:00.000-05:00Edith Jones is a miserable tyrant; it's little won...Edith Jones is a miserable tyrant; it's little wonder her priority is protecting judges from scrutiny. She should be impeached right along with Kent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1495681049293031882008-10-13T16:07:00.000-05:002008-10-13T16:07:00.000-05:00Back in 1999, my first year out of law school, som...Back in 1999, my first year out of law school, some of my co-workers defended a major environmental criminal case in front of Judge Kent. He was absolutely terrible. His rulings were all blatantly pro-prosecution to the point of insanity (e.g., he would allow the prosecutors to introduce an exhibit through one of their witnesses and then would sustain objections to the defense attorneys asking that witness questions about the same exhibit). He was well known to be a drunk who would drink hard liquor and smoke cigars back in his chambers. It was common knowledge that law enforcement would follow him home from work to make sure he made it without crashing into someone. Ultimately, after many weeks of trial, both defendants were convicted on all counts. I'm guessing millions were spent on the government and defense side. And what happened to the cases? All convictions were overturned on appeal because during deliberations, when the jury was having some problems reaching a verdict, the judge decided, over the objection of both sides, to have a conversation with the foreperson of the jury in his chambers without any counsel present. This was a blatant violation of very clear US Supreme Court case law.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, I am not surprised to hear that the "Honorable" Judge Kent has been in more trouble. These allegations are particularly troubling, and, I remember when I first heard them, I was outraged that the 5th Circuit judicial council had characterized them as "sexual harassment." Of course, it was Judge Edith Jones who famously told an attorney for a sexual harassment plaintiff arguing a case that his client's having had her breasts grabbed by a supervisor didn't seem to rise to the level of a cognizable sexual harassment claim because the supervisor had only done it once and had apologized. And this is a woman who was routinely touted for the Supreme Court during by conservatives during Bush's terms. No thank you!123txpublicdefender123https://www.blogger.com/profile/16074278445586583355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69348057014024079392008-10-13T15:30:00.000-05:002008-10-13T15:30:00.000-05:00When a cop gets hit with any sort of charges, they...When a cop gets hit with any sort of charges, they put him on suspension. When school employees get charged, they are suspended, so why is it, a person who <I>decides</I> cases should be allowed to continue with their normal duties?<BR/><BR/>This dillweed needs to be 'benched' (no pun, seriously) until after his guilt or innocence is revealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com