Texas District Judge Election

If he seeks re-election, Gilbert owes voters an explanation

In 2008, when Tracy Gilbert ran as one of five candidates for the new 418th state District Court, which focuses solely on family law, he clearly stood out as one of the most qualified candidates.

However, his recent paternity suit certainly should merit questions about his own parental responsibilities and how those influence his decisions on the bench, as well as ethical questions over his decision not to recuse himself from at least one case in which his attorney in the paternity suit tried another family custody case in his court.

While no attorney has formally announced intentions to run for Gilbert’s seat, which is up for election next year, and Gilbert at least has not told the media whether he will seek re-election, the timing of the paternity case will put a cloud over any re-election bid.

Gilbert won the case last week and will not have to pay nearly $200,000 in back child support according to a story by Nancy Flake in today’s edition of The Courier. A DNA test last December determined Gilbert is the father of the 18-year-old male, who was the subject in the child support case filed by the mother of the boy.

According to attorneys involved in the case, Gilbert had knowledge of the boy since at least the mid-1990s but had no contact with him and did not pay child support as the boy grew up.

While that case was ongoing, Gilbert sat on the bench for a case involving his attorney, Steve Jackson, involving a family custody case. Jackson represented the mother; and while the father, who represented himself in the case, did not formally request Gilbert’s recusal, the judge chose not to remove himself from the case.

Jackson previously told The Courier he specifically asked the State Bar of Texas for its opinion prior to handling any cases before Gilbert’s court after he agreed to serve as his attorney.

“The only question I asked was ‘was it ethical for an attorney to practice in front of a judge he represents?’ The State Bar of Texas came back and said it was ethical, and it’s up to the discretion of the judge,” Jackson said.

Federal Judge Finds Texas' Sonogram Law to Be Unconstitutional ...

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks issued a preliminary injunction after finding that portions of the sonogram law, set to take effect Sept. 1, were unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment by improperly requiring doctors and patients to engage in government-mandated speech.

"The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," Sparks wrote.

Hey, wait a minute! That's not how the First Amendment is supposed to work! These liberal activist judges — like this one who was appointed by George H.W. Bush — are always trying to make like Jesus and St. Augustine and the rest of the the Founding Fathers wrote that amendment to keep Christianity from being named the official religion of the U.S.A. or to allow some America-hating terrorist-supporter to go on television and point out things that he would like to see changed about the country.

No! Uh uh! That's not what it's for! It's for protecting a corporation's right to pour money in political elections and maintain the status quo.

This is a travesty of justice!

Texas

Texas, the rise, progress, and prospects of the Republic of Texas ...

Texas

Texas

Texas