October 21, 2004

DELAYED GRATIFICATION II

As far as I can tell I'm getting this before it's hit the presses—this comes from a press release issued by the office of Texas Representative Lon Burnham, which an agent deep in the heart of Texas politics just forwarded to me [One ought to note that the subpoena is for a civil case. —ed.]:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) was subpoenaed in Houston to an October 25, 2005 deposition concerning his role in the controversial dispute between Democratic Legislators and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) during last year's redistricting struggle. Texas State Representative Lon Burnam (D--Fort Worth) subpoenaed DeLay in his ongoing lawsuit challenging DPS's use of public funds to achieve political ends and for its destruction of documents following the exodus of Democratic Legislators from the State to prevent a quorum in a redistricting effort that Democrats claim was illegal.

Burnam's subpoena of DeLay comes just days after the Republican House Majority Leader was officially rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for his inappropriate use of government resources in an effort to track down and arrest House Democrats--including Burnam--who went to Ardmore to block redistricting efforts of the Texas Republicans.

Burnam's lawsuit alleges that the DPS destroyed documents regarding their efforts to apprehend the Legislators and that DPS had no lawful authority to arrest Democratic members who went to Ardmore. A number of high ranking DPS officials have given their depositions, as has Burnam in the case. An Austin Appeals Court recently held that Burnam's case on the open records issue could go forward.

"Questions have been raised about Majority Leader DeLay's role in directing both DPS and Homeland Security personnel in the use of the state and federal funds in the search for House Democrats. We believe these funds were improperly used for political gain and House Majority Leader DeLay should be required to testify about his role in the matter," said Fort Worth lawyer, Art Brender, who together with Austin lawyer Catherine Mauzy represents Burnam in the case.

"I believe DeLay's testimony is especially important in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision ordering a reconsideration of the redistricting plan to determine whether it was overly partisan," Burnam said. This Monday, October 18, 2004, the United States Supreme Court reversed the three judge lower federal court ruling that upheld the Republican drawn congressional lines and remanded the matter back to that court in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case in Pennsylvania.

Burnam claims DeLay continued a pattern of obstruction and abuse of power in avoiding service of the subpoena. Burnam had sought to subpoena DeLay at a major Republican fundraising event in Austin on the evening of October 1, 2004, but DeLay and his supporters secretly rescheduled the event to 7:00 a.m., thwarting Burnam's process server. Preventing execution of civil process is a misdemeanor under the Texas Penal Code. On Wednesday, DeLay's attorneys agreed to accept the subpoena for him to prevent service at the event.

"I brought this lawsuit because no government official should be able to use government resources for partisan political purposes and to oppress duly elected officials who are acting in their official capacity," Burnam stated. "If they can do this to an elected official and get away with it, then no citizen's rights can be protected against abuse."

October surprise indeed! (*****MUST CREDIT G.P****** and all that.) You can read more on the TRMPAC indictments (and a non-sequitor on the Justice Department's Voting Section) here.

Posted by Kriston at October 21, 2004 1:26 PM
Comments

Clarify - does that say october of two-thousand FIVE?

Posted by: T: Central at October 21, 2004 3:45 PM

Is his use of public funds/resources to help law enforcement track down folks who were derelict in their duty such a bad thing? The Democrats were AWOL.

Posted by: j.scott barnard at October 22, 2004 9:19 AM

If they were breaking the law, they should have been arrested (yes, I know they were in OK). Congressmen are not part of the executive branch or law enforcement system, and they certainly don't get to commandeer the ATC system.

There's more than enough blame to go around in the Texas gerrymandering affair. The real solution would be to empower a nonpartisan body to come up with redistricting rules and write them into the state constitution. But of course that will never happen.

Posted by: tom at October 22, 2004 9:30 AM

Also, didn't he use federal resources by getting the Department of Homeland Security on the case? I for one am relieved that DHS is protecting us from the fundamentalist democrats who hate our freedom.

I'm glad we have a serious man in congress who truly understands this war on terror, and leverages our scarce resources with wisdom and care.

Posted by: susan at October 22, 2004 10:26 AM

What else were the Dems supposed to do, Scott? Hang out around Austin, grab a beer at Hole in the Wall, watch as their state was carved into a ridiculous mockery of fair districts (all while very, very vital matters to the state were pushed to the back burner by the Republicans -- how's that for shirking your duties?), and shrug: "Hey, at least we're doing what is right and good and noble." Well, evil will always win, because good is dumb.

Blaming the Democrats for this farce is ridiculous, even if I do wish they had stuck around and screamed bloody murder for a system like Tom is advocating. That every state doesn't have a non-partisan committee to draw up logical, representational districts is a sham of democracy exceeded only by that of our disenfranchised friends in D.C. ... which also happens to be controlled by Congress!

Posted by: matty at October 22, 2004 11:40 AM

Guys, I think J. Scott has a point. I for one am sick and tired of people thinking they can just up and challenge das State's authority whenever they feel like it. Tom Delay has many of the qualities you should all respect in a fine leader.

Posted by: H. Goebbels at October 22, 2004 7:50 PM

You know what they say: Once Goebbels shows up in a thread, all further discussion is moot.

Posted by: matty at October 23, 2004 1:14 AM

Aw, that takes me back. Working in Lon's office was my first internship. (Goebbels I never worked for.)

Posted by: leslie at October 24, 2004 10:04 PM

I have diligently been trying to serve arresting officer for an ALR, DPS hearing. She has been on leave for over 3 months and Lt. (acting chief, since chief retired in scandal) refuses to take service of subpoena because I have not been furnished in DISCOVERY any other address. This was a colorful event that I think they do not want to get out.
Can anyone help with a statute? I have tried to pull the SOP's.

Posted by: Betty at March 13, 2006 11:34 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?