Harris County Voters:

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't get involved in many judicial races, but I do want to let Harris County voters know about the Republican candidate for the 280th District Court. I've known Lynn Bradshaw-Hull for several years and I have had cases in her court. She's a great judge who lost in the Democratic sweep 4 years ago and we need her back. She's the best thing in a judge that any attorney can hope for -- he's fair and unbiased.

If you vote in Harris County, please consider supporting and voting for Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

Chas.

[Liberty]

She lost because of a trial gone bad, She got a lot of bad publicity over stealing a guys property over in Seabrook in an eminent domain dispute.
I am proud to say I played a small part in getting her tossed out after she stole the property for $1.0 dollar for a failed cruise terminal at the port of Houston.
I wrote about the incident here. http://libertysblog.com/2006/01/judge-b ... owner.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
More can be found on the story on Google. She is a judge that doesn't respect property rights, and will stick it to the poor guy. I only wish I had an oportunity to vote against her.

Charles, you might know her better than I do, but I don't like what I have seen. I don't know how many good judgements it takes to make up for a poor one.

[Charles L. Cotton]

She lost because of a trial gone bad, She got a lot of bad publicity over stealing a guys property over in Seabrook in an eminent domain dispute.
I am proud to say I played a small part in getting her tossed out after she stole the property for $1.0 dollar for a failed cruise terminal at the port of Houston.
I wrote about the incident here. http://libertysblog.com/2006/01/judge-b ... owner.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
More can be found on the story on Google. She is a judge that doesn't respect property rights, and will stick it to the poor guy. I only wish I had an oportunity to vote against her.

Charles, you might know her better than I do, but I don't like what I have seen. I don't know how many good judgements it takes to make up for a poor one.

What are the facts of the case? How was the order $1? Why was evidence as to land value not admitted in trial? She lost in the Democratic sweep in which all but 3 sitting Republican judges lost.

I see the article on your blog was taken from another blog. Did you check out any of the facts behind the case?

Here is one of the comments to your blog entry:

On 2/25/2006 11:27:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sir: As a former Judge with Eminent Domain Jurisdiction for 17 years, and a 48 year Attorney I feel qualified to comment on your accusation against Judge Lynn-Bradshaw Hull,
You are totally incorrect. When the landowner failed to prove the land value as required by the Texas Constitution, Rules of Evidence and Stare-Decisis, the Court had no alternative but to rule as it did. Shame on you for your lack of professionalism and your incorrect asserations. If you are truly interested, contact any experience Condemnation Attorney and see what they tell you. You owe the Judge an apology. Charles Coussons, Attorney and Involuntarily Retired Judge.

Chas.

[Liberty]

Charles,
This Crouson Guy was an active Republican Operative and judge, and went to the same fundraisers as Lynn Bradshaw., notice that he didn't come up with any facts to dispute anything I had claimed. Neither did Lynn-Bradshaw Hull ever dispute the story or the facts when they came out.

She ruined the guy because he dare to attempt to fight a case in court that he couldn't afford to fight. It sounds like he was poorly prepared. If he had just given up his property as a good serf he wouldn't have been ion this mess. Taking the man's family property for 1 dollar, was vindictive. I don't believe we need vindictive Judges. The Democrat who has been been running the court seems to have been able to keep out of the headlines. while I tend to support Democrats I would expect Republicans probate Judges to be a little more landowner friendly in eminent domain cases. In this case it would seem that the opposite might be true.

She could have just thrown out the case. and let it stand.. The issue at hand was that he had cashed the check that was offered of 1.6 million to use on Legal fees. He did so because he thought the 1.6 Million he got wasn't enough. The Houston Port authority had millions our tax bond money at their disposal to fight the case.

I am not lawyer, but it does seem that the system failed this guy, even robbed him. Lynn-Bradshaw was the system that failed him.

By the way The Cruise Terminal in Laporte is finnished is beautiful and unused. Lynn Bradshaw should be proud.

I did link to a news source other than the Rhymes with Right Blog, and did find some other sources .. I never found anything that conflicts with what I had reported. 5 year links do have a way of decaying ... There is this one but it seems to quote the same sources I used. If Judge Bradshaw or anyone has any information that could justify such harsh actions I would be glad to listen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Liberty, I'm not busting your chops over this, I really don't know about this case. What I do know is that no judge, especially Lynn Bradshaw-Hull, is going to award $1 out of spite. It would be very easy to over turn on appeal.

Based upon the comments of the retired judge, it appears to me that the landowner didn't follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Evidence in terms of meeting the requirements to get evidence of the land's value admitted in court. Was he representing himself? If so, then that was a huge mistake in a case that has a value of at least $1.6 million. I have no sympathy for people who do that. It's like a blind person getting behind the wheel of a car then not wanting to be responsible for the accident he causes simply because everyone should feel sorry for him because he is blind.

The complaint seems to be that the judge wouldn't let evidence of the land's value into the trial. If that's the case, then my educated guess is either 1) the landowner didn't follow the rules of procedure and/or evidence to make it admissible; or 2) he didn't have an expert to testify on that issue. (Laymen can't offer expert opinions.) If this was the case, then the judge had no alternative but to keep inadmissible evidence out of the trial. Without evidence of the land's value, the court is required to award only nominal damages (i.e. $1). Judge Bradshaw-Hull did not have the authority to determine a value on her own, she was bound by the admissible evidence tendered at trial. This is a good example of what I meant when I said earlier that all an attorney can ask for is a fair trial. I want a judge to follow the law, not make it up on their own. If someone represents themselves, or gets poor legal representation, I don't want my client losing because the judge feels sorry for them or doesn't like the outcome the law demands.

Based upon the blog entries, it appears the landowner didn't even bother to go to the pre-litigation hearing when the board was setting a value for the property. His excuse was that he didn't think it was right for the state to take his property. I suspect this cavalier attitude toward the administrative process flowed over to the legal arena and he simply didn't do what was necessary to present his valuation evidence at trial. Imminent domain cases are not in my area of practice, so I'm not sure what the law requires in terms of awarding attorney fees to the prevailing parties. Based upon what you have said, I suspect it is the same as declaratory judgment cases and DTPA cases that do not leave that decision to the discretion of the judge, but require an award of costs and fees. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, only that I suspect it is.

Let me know if you have the case name and I'll research its appellate history. If it was not appealed,there will be no opinion to review. Trial courts in Texas don't issue opinions as do federal district courts.

This case in a nutshell seems to be a situation where the landowner didn't go to the evaluation hearing; took the money that was awarded, then used some of that award to challenge the award in court. When he got to court, he or his attorney apparently didn't follow the law and rules of civil procedure and evidence to get critical evidence admitted during the trial. Because of this, he lost, the court awarded nominal damages/value ($1), so he had to pay back the $1.6 he took before filing suit. It seems to me that his problem was of his own making.

Based on what I've read on your site and the one you cited, coupled with my knowledge of how you get evidence into trial, I believe it is grossly unfair to condemn the judge for the outcome of this case. We decry activist judges who ignore the law and make rulings based upon who they want to win. It appears to me that this is precisely what you wanted Judge Bradshaw-Hill to do. I don't like the current state of immanent domain law one little bit, but the remedy is to change the law, not encourage judges to be activists from the bench.

Chas.

Charles,
This Crouson Guy was an active Republican Operative and judge, and went to the same fundraisers as Lynn Bradshaw., notice that he didn't come up with any facts to dispute anything I had claimed. Neither did Lynn-Bradshaw Hull ever dispute the story or the facts when they came out.

She ruined the guy because he dare to attempt to fight a case in court that he couldn't afford to fight. It sounds like he was poorly prepared. If he had just given up his property as a good serf he wouldn't have been ion this mess. Taking the man's family property for 1 dollar, was vindictive. I don't believe we need vindictive Judges. The Democrat who has been been running the court seems to have been able to keep out of the headlines. while I tend to support Democrats I would expect Republicans probate Judges to be a little more landowner friendly in eminent domain cases. In this case it would seem that the opposite might be true.

She could have just thrown out the case. and let it stand.. The issue at hand was that he had cashed the check that was offered of 1.6 million to use on Legal fees. He did so because he thought the 1.6 Million he got wasn't enough. The Houston Port authority had millions our tax bond money at their disposal to fight the case.

I am not lawyer, but it does seem that the system failed this guy, even robbed him. Lynn-Bradshaw was the system that failed him.

By the way The Cruise Terminal in Laporte is finnished is beautiful and unused. Lynn Bradshaw should be proud.

I did link to a news source other than the Rhymes with Right Blog, and did find some other sources .. I never found anything that conflicts with what I had reported. 5 year links do have a way of decaying ... There is this one but it seems to quote the same sources I used. If Judge Bradshaw or anyone has any information that could justify such harsh actions I would be glad to listen.

[Liberty]

I don't feel like I've been unfair to Judge Bradshaw-Hill. The charges have been made, (not by me I just repeated them) She refused to respond to them. One of her friends responds but offers no facts. After she lost the election her crony buddies got her another judgeship anyways. Looks to me she didn't even have to pay the price for losing. The people voted her out and the cronys reward her anyway ..

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like under these circumstances .. a judge could simply have thrown the case out of court and let him keep his $1.9 mil. There isn't any way that the judge or the Port Authority believed the property was only worth a dollar. Isn't the fact that the port authority offered $1.6Mill proof that it is worth something?

105 acres of bayfront property in Seabrook is worth a minimum of something? just by the fact of its existence? I doubt there is anywhere in Texas that one can buy more than 100 acres for $1.00

If she had thrown the whole thing out of court, and demanded that Seureau turn over the title perhaps even pay the legal bills, the Port Authority would have been happy.

He did have a lawyer but it sounds like he might not have been a good one. The case went appeal ,and perhaps got settled. All I know is most of us aren't likely to ever go to a criminal court. But Its pretty likely most of us will some day appear before a probate court. The voter might ask themselves if they would want to appear before a judge that has done this?

I've beat this horse enough, and I understand that I might be appearing obtuse. I might not understand the law very well, but I do know what being fair is.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't feel like I've been unfair to Judge Bradshaw-Hill. The charges have been made, (not by me I just repeated them) She refused to respond to them. One of her friends responds but offers no facts. After she lost the election her crony buddies got her another judgeship anyways. Looks to me she didn't even have to pay the price for losing. The people voted her out and the cronys reward her anyway ..

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like under these circumstances .. a judge could simply have thrown the case out of court and let him keep his $1.9 mil. There isn't any way that the judge or the Port Authority believed the property was only worth a dollar. Isn't the fact that the port authority offered $1.6Mill proof that it is worth something?

105 acres of bayfront property in Seabrook is worth a minimum of something? just by the fact of its existence? I doubt there is anywhere in Texas that one can buy more than 100 acres for $1.00

If she had thrown the whole thing out of court, and demanded that Seureau turn over the title perhaps even pay the legal bills, the Port Authority would have been happy.

He did have a lawyer but it sounds like he might not have been a good one. The case went appeal ,and perhaps got settled. All I know is most of us aren't likely to ever go to a criminal court. But Its pretty likely most of us will some day appear before a probate court. The voter might ask themselves if they would want to appear before a judge that has done this?

I've beat this horse enough, and I understand that I might be appearing obtuse. I might not understand the law very well, but I do know what being fair is.

She couldn't just throw the case out of court; that's not an option in Texas as it is in federal court. The landowner filed the suit and he could have filed a Motion to Dismiss, but the court didn't have the authority to do so. The landowner screwed up by filing the case and apparently not meeting the legal requirements to get in necessary evidence.

As for the port's "offer," that's not the way it works. The Board made the award and the landowner refused it when he filed suit. The Board's award meant nothing then, but the landowner could and should have offered evidence of that value. Again, he had to comply with the requirements of the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence and he apparently didn't.

As for the "charges" being made and the judge not responding, all I can say is what you call "charges" are nothing more than a blogger's (not you) ranting about the result without any facts of the case. Those are not "charges," they are nothing more than character assassination. Also, a sitting judge isn't going to respond to such garbage; it's not within judicial decorum.

That's not the judge's fault and any criticism of her for following the law is unfounded.

Chas.