Why are you seeking this bench and what 3 primary goals do you have in mind if you are elected?

I am seeking this office to bring greater consistency to the rulings of the Court of Criminal Appeals. My three primary goals are to:

1. Reduce the time the court takes to render opinion;

2. Address the recent trend of decisions that have the effect of preventing the prosecution of provisions of the Texas Criminal Code and Texas Election Code; and

3. Ensure the efficient, effective administration of Justice for all citizens.

Are the United States and Texas constitutions living documents? Please answer in the context of Progressivism versus Originalism.

The United States and Texas Constitutions are living documents, in the limited sense that they were intended, indeed specifically designed, to be amended to reflect the changing values of American society. However, both documents are foundational, in that they are meant to be changed only rarely, and slowly, and after considerable reflection and social change. Prohibition is an example of how such a change should be managed, at least relative to the Constitutions. Gay marriage is a counter example.

What carries the greatest influence on your rulings: case law, the Constitutions, or other?

1. The Constitutions - 2. Other - 3. Caselaw

The role of the appellate courts is to interpret the law, in light of the hierarchy of laws, of which

the Constitutions are the supreme law of their respective territories. The highest appellate court

in each jurisdiction, of which the CCA is one, is tasked with not only interpreting the law, but

changing or invalidating the law, in appropriate circumstances, including over ruling existing

case law based on changing circumstances; which is why “other” comes before case law for the

highest court of each jurisdiction and/or subject matter.

Please describe the best way for the average voter to determine which judicial candidate is best.

The best way for the average voter to determine which judicial candidate is best is:

In the case of an incumbent, to look at the decision the incumbent has made, and determine if those decisions are aligned with the voters individual beliefs, values and priorities. 

In the case of a judicial candidate challenging an incumbent, to look at the candidate's relevant experience, their history of involvement with the affiliated political party, and statements of their beliefs, values and priorities, in order to determine which candidate more closely aligns with the individual voter's beliefs, values and priorities. 

Do you believe in the right of the people to jury nullification as jurors in criminal courts? Why or why not?

Yes. I believe in the right of the people to jury nullification as jurors in criminal courts.

Jury nullification has a long and storied history dating back to British common law. The

British legal system, specifically a 1670 English case in which Quakers were acquitted by a jury

of violating a law that permitted religious assemblies only under the Church of England. Jury

nullification is an essential check against tyrannical power and religious persecution, essential in

a free society.

To what extent do you believe the state or federal government should be able to obtain court orders directing parents to do things for their children that the parent does not believe should be done?

The rights of the parents to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs should be the

default position, and vigorously defended. Governmental intrusion into the Parents’ prerogative

should be extremely narrow and rare. However, there are some circumstances where the

welfare of the child, or the greater potential harm to society, may outweigh the rights of the

parents with respect to certain narrowly tailored issues. These may include blood transfusion to

save a child’s life.

Please describe the qualifications and experience that make you the best candidate for the office you are seeking.

I have 20+ years of experience handling criminal, civil and family law cases in multiple State and

Federal jurisdictions. I am a US Marine Corps veteran. I have lived in Texas for almost 30 years.

I have degrees in Chemistry, Humanities, Philosophy and Law. I have a thorough

understanding of the Texas criminal justice system, obtained from actual, in court, trial

experience in front of juries and judges. I have set aside a portion of my time to represent

indigent defendants in Texas, with charges ranging from illegal dumping to murder. I also have

extensive experience representing Texas defendants with mental health issues.

What 2 things about your opponent do the voters need to know?

As an attorney:

She has never represented a defendant in a criminal case.

She has never tried a criminal case.

She has never filed a criminal appeal. 

What role should government have in reforming criminals?

A limited Government’s proper role is to protect the people and establish a stable society for the

welfare of all. Implementation and enforcement of the criminal laws should be effectuated with

the goal of providing the greatest stability and prosperity for the greatest number of people. If

rehabilitation is feasible and practical, then it can be entertained, so long as doing so promotes

the welfare of society as a whole. Some individuals cannot be rehabilitated, or in the alternative,

represent too great a risk to society to entertain ever putting them back on the street. An

example would be child sexual predators.

How relevent today is Blackstone's maxim "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer".

Blackstone’s famous maxim is more relevant today than it was in Blackstone’s time. Today we have Government Fusion centers providing information obtained in violation of the US and Texas Constitutions to prosecutors, some of whom then conclude, based on that illegally obtained evidence, that they “know” the defendant is “guilty” and therefore have no compunction about violating the defendant’s Civil Rights or the Constitutions, in order to obtain convictions. As difficult as it might seem at times, if we do not protect the rights of the lowest and most despicable members of our society, we fail to protect the rights of any members of our society.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

—Martin Niemöller

What Texas State court decision do you think has most impacted society? How and Why?

If “society” as used in this question means the US population as a whole, then the Texas State

Court cases that have “most impacted society” are generally those that led to important or

landmark decisions by the US Supreme Court. Examples include Texas v. Johnson (flag burning

as free speech) and Hernandez v. Texas (prohibiting exclusion of otherwise eligible persons

from jury service solely because of their ancestry). It is worth noting that more landmark US

Supreme Court cases have originated in United States District Courts (federal courts) located in

Texas than in any other state, including Roe.

CSPOA says "Civil forfeiture laws pose one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. They encourage law enforcement to favor the pursuit of property over the pursuit of justice, and they typically give the innocent little recourse for recovering seized property. And without meaningful transparency, law enforcement faces little public accountability for its forfeiture activity or expenditures from forfeiture funds." How should these Civil Forfieture issues be addressed?

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association has the better side of the argument

with respect to civil forfeiture laws. As currently implemented and enforced, civil forfeiture laws

more often than not function against the interests of society, and the individual. Civil forfeitures

can be onerous and egregious, leaving those targeted with no practicable remedy. While there

is a place for civil forfeiture in appropriate cases, as currently implemented, civil forfeiture laws

have proliferated well beyond their original limits and appropriate limits need to be implemented

by the legislature.

In your view, what is the threshold for determining constitutionality of a legislative act? or a challenge to it?

The threshold for determining constitutionality of a legislative act is Strict Scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny

is the highest standard of review which a court uses to evaluate the constitutionality of

governmental discrimination. The other two standards are intermediate scrutiny and rational

basis review. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a

"compelling governmental interest," and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that

specific interest.

Equal Protection - When Strict Scrutiny is invoked in an equal protection claim, the Court

evaluates whether the legislature passed a law that infringes upon a fundamental right or

involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include race, national origin, religion,

and alienage.

Other Applications - Restrictions on content-based speech are also reviewed under the Strict

Scrutiny standard. However, the Supreme Court has declined to apply Strict Scrutiny to gun

regulations, leaving unresolved which standard of review applies to Second Amendment

questions.

Please describe the changes you will make to improve the efficiency of your court, yet remain thoughful about rulings/orders - that allows all parties to be heard and their arguments considered. Please specifically address how many days a year your court will be “in session.”

Other than to moderate the tone of recent concurrences and dissents, I have no plans to

change any aspect of the Court of Criminal Appeals, at this time. It would be inappropriate for

me to judge a Court’s policies and procedures for their efficiency before serving on the Court in

person.

Among the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court(SCOTUS), which one do you respect the most, and why?  Which one do you respect the least, and why?  What judicial philosophy should a SCOTUS Justice have?

Among the nine current SCOTUS Justices, I most respect Justice Samuel Alito. His reasoning

and logic are most closely aligned with my own. The Dobbs opinion was magnificent.

If elected, do you think you'd be invited to participate in the Freedom Caucus? Why or why not?

Among the nine justices current SCOTUS Justices, I least respect Justice Sonia Sotomayor. My

value set does not align with hers. I strongly disagree with her decision making process, which I

perceive to be one primarily based on how she “feels” about an issue, rather than being based

in reason and logic.

What are the limits of federal judicial review as far as the 10th amendment is concerened?

This question highlights the enormous impact of a single word.

Article 2 of the original Articles of Confederation stated:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction,

and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in

Congress assembled.”

While the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The absence of the word “expressly” in the Tenth Amendment, effectively rendered it all but

powerless, as addressed in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941): “The amendment

states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the

history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between

the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the

amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government

might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise

fully their reserved powers.''

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1986), the Court held that the Tenth

Amendment imposes practically no judicially enforceable limit on generally applicable federal

legislation, and states must look to the political process for redress.

However, more recent cases have moved away from holding that the 10th amendment is devoid

of function, and the Court has increasingly leaned somewhat more in the direction of State

sovereignty.

New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled the Tenth Amendment prohibits the

federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce

federal law.

Printz v. United States (1997, Certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment).

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018, Professional and Amateur Sports

Protection Act of 1992, addressing and limiting U.S. federal government’s ability to control state

lawmaking).

South Dakota v. Dole (1987), conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on

compliance with certain conditions,

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2010 legality of the Affordable Care

Act’s individual mandate).

But see Haaland v. Brackeen (2023, holding that the Indian Welfare act was constitutional).

In short, the Tenth Amendment should do exactly what the language states, limit the Federal

Government’s ability to exercise powers that are reserved to the States respectively, or to the

people. Unfortunately, in practice, that has not been how the courts have interpreted the 10th

Amendment.

I choose to endow the 10th Amendment with the meaning of its literal words. I believe that every

part of the Constitution must be given meaning, and that no part of the document is simply

declaratory for the purposes of allaying fears. By extension, I would interpret the 10th

Amendment to have considerably more limiting force on the actions and policies of the Federal

Government than the Supreme Court has historically read into it.

Is there anything in your background of an embarrassing nature that should be explained before your election? Arrests/Convictions? Bankruptcys?

My opponent claims that my experience is woefully inadequate to be a judge on the criminal supreme court.  She is mistaken. I have represented defendants in hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal cases, including many felony cases, including murder, aggravated assault, burglary, etc.

My opponent claims that I conducted campaign activities for weeks without filing a campaign treasurer designation. She is mistaken. I filed with the Texas Ethics Commision to transfer my Campaign Treasurer Designation from Collin County to the Texas Ethics Commission on October 27th. I filed a supplemental Campaign Treasurer Designation with the Texas Ethics Commission on November 9th. I didn’t filed for a place on the ballot until December 9th.  

My opponent claims that I do not fulfill my financial obligations. She is mistaken. She claims that I defaulted on a home equity loan, which is not true. I have never been an obligor on the home equity loan she is referring to. I did not sign it, my name is not on it. I was never under any obligation to make payments towards it. The home equity loan taken out by my wife almost twenty years ago, before we were married. My wife paid ~$200k of a $240k loan. The lender (Taylor Bean and Whitaker) went bankrupt and their officers were imprisoned for fraud. The lender pledged the loan as collateral to multiple lenders.  After the lender went bankrupt, 3 separate companies claimed the right to collect the loan. The lawsuit is to resolve if the loan is collectable, and if so, who has the right to collect on it. 

Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution states that no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. What do you think that means? Who can swear an oath or issue affidavit in a criminal case?

I think that “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation”

means literally what it says. Unfortunately, in practice, law enforcement sometimes engage in

short cuts. I have handled cases where a search was executed prior to the warrant being

issued, or the warrant was issued prior to the Oath or Affirmation being taken, or the associated

paperwork being filled out. I handled one criminal case where the officer accidentally faxed a

blank affidavit to the Judge, with no facts, statements or signatures. Despite this, the Judge

issued the warrant. I handled another case where the officer cut and pasted from a previous

application for a search warrant, and forgot to change the name, gender and description of the

Defendant. The court issued the warrant anyway.

The phrase “probable cause” has no universally accepted definition. The U.S. Supreme Court in

Beck v. Ohio said that Probable Cause was "whether at [the moment of arrest] the facts and

circumstances within [an officer's] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy

information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had

committed or was committing an offense." However, recent trends in law enforcement have

eroded the necessary showing to establish probable cause. Of particular concern are instances

where information from the local Fusion Center is used to advance investigations and

prosecutions, without complying with Constitutional or Statutory requirements.

Government power to interfere in the private affairs of its Citizens should be limited and narrow

in scope, and only when supported by reliable evidence obtained in compliance with the law.

The search of a person’s private residence, or private affairs, should not be the normal

operating procedure, but a rarity used only in appropriate circumstances. “A Man’s home is his

castle”

As to who can swear an oath or issue an affidavit in a criminal case, Art. 18.01 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure states that a magistrate may examine an applicant for a search warrant and

any person on whose testimony the application is based. The applicant or other person must be

placed under oath before the examination. Generally speaking, almost any competent adult can

provide information or testimony to support an application for a Search Warrant. In practice,

however, even if the testimony of a citizen is used in support of, or included in, an application for

a Search Warrant, the applicant is almost always a law enforcement officer.

Can the legislature effectively write law that makes sense for 30 million people? Please explain your thoughts

Answering this question based on existing circumstances would strongly suggest no. The

legislature appears unable, or unwilling, to write laws that make sense for 30 million people.

However, if we approach the law from a minimalist perspective, permitting the Government to

legislate only the bare minimum amount truly necessary to promote the safety and welfare of

the people, then the laws can be drafted with simpler, straightforward language. It is

unreasonable to expect compliance with a law a person neither knows of, nor would understand

if they were aware of it. We need fewer laws, on less subjects, with simple, plain everyday

language.

Please explain your view of recidivism and how it affects the sentences you given

Recidivism is usually defined as criminal acts that resulted in rearrest, reconviction or return to

prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following a person's release.

However, in general usage, Recidivism may refer simply to any subsequent criminal offense,

after a Defendant has been convicted for the first time.

Recidivism is best approached from the perspective of incapacitation, specific deterrence and

rehabilitation. Incapacitation refers to the effect of a sanction to stop people from committing

crime by removing them from the community. Putting someone in jail generally eliminates

recidivism, at least as to offenses against the non jail population, for the duration of the

sentence. Specific deterrence addresses whether a sanction stops people from committing

further crime, once the sanction has been imposed or completed. The Death Penalty is the

ultimate example of this, but arguments that longer sentences discourage future crime fall into

the category as well. Rehabilitation refers to the degree to which a sentence, sanction or

program can produce a reduction in crime by addressing the perceived needs or deficits of

offending individuals. Prison GED programs and job skills training fall into this category.

Recidivism bears on and is related to criminal desistance. Desistance is the journey from

criminal to non offender. Recidivism is a key element in determining the appropriate sentence.

Everyone makes mistakes: some more serious than others. Society does not benefit from the

long term incarceration of people who do not pose a danger to society, and who could be

productive, functional citizens. However, career criminals with extensive criminal histories have

demonstrated a proven willingness to engage in criminal activity and to cause harm to others.

Such a history must be taken in the balance when determining sentences, and serious prison

terms for relatively minor offenses may be appropriate in the case of repeat offenders, on a case

by case basis.

Institutions can be reformed by the will of the people. However which is the proper roll of government concerning criminals. Is it Reform or Punishment? Why?

Both, in appropriate circumstances. The proper role of the Government concerning criminals is

to protect the health and safety of the citizens. Government should do this by employing the

most effective means, using a cost benefit analysis that balances the cost in taxpayer dollars

against the degree of increased safety, or risk, to the citizens.

Separating dangerous people from society through incarceration is one immediate way to

protect the citizens. Early intervention before a young person becomes a criminal offender, for

example by providing educational opportunities to high risk youth, may produce an increased

level of citizen safety per dollar spent.

Punishment and “reform” are only two of many possible government actions that can be used to

identify ways to provide the maximum amount of Citizen safety per tax dollar spent. Punishment

and education tend to produce tangible results. The impact of efforts to “Reform” existing

criminals is less clear, and there are reasonable arguments that the Government should not be

in the business of providing benefits to criminals. However, if we expand the definition of

“reform” to include education and job opportunities, particularly those aimed at high risk youths

before they commit a serious crime, it may be the case that an investment that prevents a crime

from happening, provides enough of a return on the investment of taxpayer money to be

warranted.

What area of Criminal Justice needs the most urgent reform? What have you done to promote reform?

Bail bonds, “Noise” reduction in sentencing and Civil Forfeitures.

I have participated in BailBond policy decision making for Collin County. I have been involved in the evaluation of, and proposed reforms to, the Federal sentencing guidelines. I have represented people subject to Civil Forfeitures in criminal matters.