Lisa McMinn, the state prosecuting attorney, asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to disregard Abbott’s request, arguing that there was no obligation to notify Abbott about a case he was powerless to join.
McMinn told the court that only local prosecutors and her office, created in 1923 to handle criminal appellate matters for Texas, may represent the state in appeals involving criminal cases. Abbott, who represents Texas in civil court matters, cannot intervene in an ongoing criminal case unless invited by a local prosecutor — and Abbott received no such offer in the case, she said.
Monday, February 10, 2014
State Prosecuting Attorney to Greg Abbott: Butt out
Regular readers will recall that last year the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared Texas' online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutional. Strangely, given that he has no role in criminal cases except when he's invited in by local prosecutors (unless you consider his motives political, in which case it's not strange at all), Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott sought to have the CCA re-hear the case. Mark Bennett earlier published his arguments why the AG had no authority to request rehearing, and it turns out the State Prosecuting Attorney agrees. Reported the Austin Statesman last week (Feb. 4):
I thought you were legally obligated to make a twerking joke for this case.
ReplyDeleteGregg Abbott used the online solicitation busts as showcase for his office. You could go to the AG's website and see all of the men he busted in his sting operations. So why do you ask is he so concerned now?? Well, now that part of that law has been declared unconstitutional, it is a black eye to his department. So Greg ole' boy...how are you going to spin this one? hahahaha
ReplyDelete@Red, do I not even get credit for linking to a twerking reference in the first sentence?
ReplyDeleteSome years ago, I argued at the COurt of Criminal Appeals against the AG when the AG filed a mandamus in a criminal case. It was brutal. The judges tortured that poor SOB from the AG's office. Then a couple of weeks later published a 9-0 opinion that was a bit nasty to the AG's office.
ReplyDeleteLawyers for the state argued that without the ban on sexually explicit communication, “perverts will be free to bombard our children with salacious emails and text messages, and parents and law enforcement would be unable to stop it.”
ReplyDelete@5:58, by contrast, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that "everything that Section 33.021(b) prohibits and punishes is speech and is either already prohibited by other statutes (such as obscenity, distributing harmful material to minors, solicitation of a minor, or child pornography) or is constitutionally protected." (Emphasis in original.)
ReplyDeleteSo now that this has been declared unconstitutional, what about the men whose names are published on the web as having been convicted of this non-crime? Shouldn't this be removed? Isn't it morally wrong to continue to publish this information? Oh wait, Greg Abbott has no morals. Only his blowhard BS about what he's' done for Texas as AG. Which is what? Sue the President of the United States 27+ times? Waste taxpayer dollars?
ReplyDeleteOh, let's not forget that he's collected over $3billion in child support payments. He implies that was all back support. It's not and wasn't. Does everybody know that no matter the agreement between the two parties to a support order that the AG's office swoops in to order it all be processed through the AG's office? This happened to me. I went from getting my support by the 3rd through the county, to getting it around the 18th. Took me 18 months and much phone time to find out that I could file a form saying I didn't want the support paid through the state. Voila, back to the county who did a MUCH better job of it! They don't tell you that to begin with though!
Greg Abbott is a joke. Typical GOP twisting of facts, inflammation of voters fears. Watch out blue Texans, if you don't vote, you are going to be sorry! Greg Abbott should be offensive to your own personal morals. VOTE BLUE!
Find me one Democrat who truly supports free speech and I'll vote for him. Democrats like Obama, Holder, Maddow and Matthews only support free speech for those who agree with them. Republicans are much the same. Only Libertarians truly want free speech.
ReplyDeleteBloods be like, red.
ReplyDeleteCrips be like, blue.
Can anyone tell us why in the hell the Republicans be like all red and all? And while you are at it, why would the Democrats be like all blue.
Glorifying gangs while recreating the Civil War right down to the colors. Throw in a bully tactic like Abbott's and you got yourself a hokeey pokeey. Vote Quinby.
Grits, would his behavior require a criminal investigation due to the stink it left? He clearly wished to throw monkey wrenches into fans.
ReplyDelete@4:20, your comment reminds me of something I read recently from Procopius:
ReplyDelete"In every city the population has been divided for a long time past into the Blue and the Green factions. ... So there grows up in them against their fellow men a hostility which has no cause, and at no time does it cease or disappear, for it gives place neither to the ties of marriage nor of relationship nor of friendship, and the case is the same even though those who differ with respect to these colours be brothers or any other kin. ... I, for my part, am unable to call this anything except a disease of the soul."
Grits, that quote reminded me of something very similar.
ReplyDeleteThat being - United we win, Divided we fall. When we allow for, or condone by acceptance, a color coded public at large vs. humans all on an equal footing (despite income, skin pigmentation, or job title) we simply set ourselves up for what we deserve.
Abbott clearly attempted to cross a line he surely knew he was barred from doing so BUT, did so anyway. He got away with attempting to conspire (with someone?) to do something unethical. On any other day McMinn would have complied but something says she knew we were watching.