• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Texas attorney general indicted on felony charges

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
772
Location
Pierce County, Washington
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cted-on-felony-charges-sources-say/ar-BBljQAB

A grand jury has indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on multiple felony charges, according to several sources who are familiar with the complaints.

The charges will be unsealed in McKinney on Monday about noon, and a Tarrant County judge has already been appointed to preside over the case, sources told WFAA.

After the indictments are unsealed, Paxton can surrender to be photographed, fingerprinted and booked into jail.

It's unclear exactly what Paxton will be indicted for, although a grand jury here has heard evidence that Paxton, 52, violated securities laws.

Paxton does not have to resign or step down from statewide office as he prepares to face a criminal trial. He can continue to work, just as Gov. Rick Perry did after his two felony indictments in August 2014.

Please explain to me how this person is able to keep his job as a LAWYER for the state while at the same time being under indictment for a FELONY charge??
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

Please explain to me how this person is able to keep his job as a LAWYER for the state while at the same time being under indictment for a FELONY charge??
Maybe because being under indictment is not the same as being determined to be guilty.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
337
Location
usa
I believe the term is innocent until proven guilty....

Because you got arrested for Open Carrying, should you lose your job?
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I believe the term is innocent until proven guilty....

Because you got arrested for Open Carrying, should you lose your job?

Nope. Just your RIGHTS to an effective self-defense until the matter is ultimately resolved in your favor. Or at least that is what current law is regarding any felony indictment or domestic violence misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken.

A cop so indicted would be placed on administrative leave until the charges were resolved.

Seems to me that "officers of the court" and elected officials ought to be subject to some of the same kinds of rules imposed on us commoners.

Charles
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
772
Location
Pierce County, Washington
My point is, why is this person who represents the state as the state's attorney, still have his job? If he is charged with a felony, then his judgement as a lawyer is in question. He should NOT be still doing his job until such time as he is cleared of all charges. Period!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
My point is, why is this person who represents the state as the state's attorney, still have his job? If he is charged with a felony, then his judgement as a lawyer is in question. He should NOT be still doing his job until such time as he is cleared of all charges. Period!

Silly me, I always thought that the correctness of one's judgement had to be established in an adversarial process. That's why it's called "questioning one's judgement". The question is raised, a process ensues to determine if one's judgement is in fact impaired. Then we act upon the answer derived.

I guess I never realized that all it takes is the mere accusation in order to inflict punishment.

It is rather nice of you to be willing to give him back his job if he is in fact found not guilty. Would that include all back pay and benefits including seniority?

stay safe.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,224
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Maybe because being under indictment is not the same as being determined to be guilty.

This is Truth! You can accuse me of almost anything, until proven, it is just that, an accusation. Nothing more.

BUT......this part mite sting a bit

Now days the accusation is almost as bad as the conviction.

If he is innocent of any charges on monday, I will stand with him. That said, if he is proven guilty of a felony, then I will stand with the Law.
Innocent until proven otherwise.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
772
Location
Pierce County, Washington
Nope. Just your RIGHTS to an effective self-defense until the matter is ultimately resolved in your favor. Or at least that is what current law is regarding any felony indictment or domestic violence misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken.

A cop so indicted would be placed on administrative leave until the charges were resolved.

Seems to me that "officers of the court" and elected officials ought to be subject to some of the same kinds of rules imposed on us commoners.

Charles

Ok, lets put it another way. As utbagpiper said, If any one of us were to be charged with a felony, our right to keep and bear arms would be stripped away until either the charge was dismissed or ultimately, we were to be found "not guilty" of the crime. Through the whole process, how many of us would keep our jobs? How bout those of us that need a background check for our jobs? What about military personnel? How many employers out there would let you keep your job for the duration of the trial? This also falls on ethical standards.

How many here would continue to rely on their lawyer that has been charged with a serious crime such as a felony? Could you trust his/her judgement? If he/she has the charges dismissed or is found not guilty then fine, back to business. But until such time, this person should NOT be providing legal advice to the state. There is constant talk about "some animals" being treated better then others. If the common man gets treated a certain way at the onset of a felony charge, why is the state attorney general being treated better? And a better question, why are people here supporting his better treatment? Hold everyone to the same standards regardless of their political position or on whom their employer is.


Grapeshot, you need to read that carefully. a grand jury indictment is a charge. It's an alternative to the prosecutor bringing the charge his/herself. In this case, the state attorney general is surrendering himself for booking as of Monday.


Regardless, I'm done. It's obvious that people here would rather attack me then the actual problem.
 

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
Ok, lets put it another way. As utbagpiper said, If any one of us were to be charged with a felony, our right to keep and bear arms would be stripped away until either the charge was dismissed or ultimately, we were to be found "not guilty" of the crime. Through the whole process, how many of us would keep our jobs? How bout those of us that need a background check for our jobs? What about military personnel? How many employers out there would let you keep your job for the duration of the trial? This also falls on ethical standards.

How many here would continue to rely on their lawyer that has been charged with a serious crime such as a felony? Could you trust his/her judgement? If he/she has the charges dismissed or is found not guilty then fine, back to business. But until such time, this person should NOT be providing legal advice to the state. There is constant talk about "some animals" being treated better then others. If the common man gets treated a certain way at the onset of a felony charge, why is the state attorney general being treated better? And a better question, why are people here supporting his better treatment? Hold everyone to the same standards regardless of their political position or on whom their employer is.



Grapeshot, you need to read that carefully. a grand jury indictment is a charge. It's an alternative to the prosecutor bringing the charge his/herself. In this case, the state attorney general is surrendering himself for booking as of Monday.


Regardless, I'm done. It's obvious that people here would rather attack me then the actual problem.

They are attacking the "problem". The problem, of course, is your "guilty until proven innocent" way of thinking as a solution.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Maybe because being under indictment is not the same as being determined to be guilty.

The Bar in most states is the body who decides if a person will have their license to practice law suspended -- not the courts.

A conviction in court should NOT be required to jettison an immoral attorney from the Bar Association.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
They are attacking the "problem". The problem, of course, is your "guilty until proven innocent" way of thinking as a solution.
I didn't take Grim's post as supporting the whole wrongful treatment.

I took it as treating everyone equally under the law and procedures.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I took it as treating everyone equally under the law and procedures.

Every participant in the legal system (police, to judges to lawyers) protect their own. And they expect the same treatment in return.

Royals don't suffer the law like Serfs.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
My point is, why is this person who represents the state as the state's attorney, still have his job? If he is charged with a felony, then his judgement as a lawyer is in question. He should NOT be still doing his job until such time as he is cleared of all charges. Period!

He is an elected officer, he can only be removed from office as outlined in the state constitution.

Just like our WA state auditor Troy Kelley.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
772
Location
Pierce County, Washington
They are attacking the "problem". The problem, of course, is your "guilty until proven innocent" way of thinking as a solution.

Maybe you should reread what I have been saying. At no point did I say this person was "guilty until proven innocent". I said that until such time as he is cleared of all charges in one form or another, he should not be representing the state as it's attorney general. If that means he is removed from office on a temporary basis (and the next person in line steps up to take his place) till this issue is resolved, then fine.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
606
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
Because politicians and lawyers write the laws and they know sooner or later they will trip up and get caught on something so they make it advantages as possible to themselfs

When the criminals write the laws what do you expect.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Maybe you should reread what I have been saying. At no point did I say this person was "guilty until proven innocent". I said that until such time as he is cleared of all charges in one form or another, he should not be representing the state as it's attorney general. If that means he is removed from office on a temporary basis (and the next person in line steps up to take his place) till this issue is resolved, then fine.
There is no end to the length of that dog's tail.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
He is an elected officer, he can only be removed from office as outlined in the state constitution.

Just like our WA state auditor Troy Kelley.

An attorney can be disbarred without any popular vote. Even one who holds an elected position.

Boo ya

(ain't gonna happen though. Snakes protect snakes).
 
Last edited:
Top