Brazos County DA 2024 Election [Staff Warning]

49,624 Views | 317 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by befitter
AgLaw09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is an important race and I don't think anyone is objecting to the suggestion to talk to law enforcement. In fact, some here have said they have and indicated what they've learned. You haven't.

But what I've yet to hear is what you have evidently heard that makes you want to support a candidate who's been shown to be dishonest in her campaign. What change is so needed that voters should disregard that?
AggieClassOf2007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
histag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Her mailer and her website say she has been an ADA for OVER 8 years. She has barely hit the 8 year mark (I believe- or she is ALMOST at 8 years) and had at least 3 jobs in that time, not all as an ADA.

If you can't be honest about the most basic information, how can anyone trust that you will be honest in your dealings as the DA?
LuckyDuck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would really like an explanation on what Maritza means by "She is the only candidate who has actively tried cases to a jury."

The implication to me is clear but perhaps she means something else.

I have served on the jury for a case tried by Jarvis - as the lead prosecutor - and the statement posted from her campaign website feels blatantly dishonest to me.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It doesn't say she's the only one who IS actively trying cases. It says she's the only one who HAS actively tried cases.

Those things mean very different things.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieClassOf2007 said:

AgLaw09 said:

This is an important race and I don't think anyone is objecting to the suggestion to talk to law enforcement. In fact, some here have said they have and indicated what they've learned. You haven't.

But what I've yet to hear is what you have evidently heard that makes you want to support a candidate who's been shown to be dishonest in her campaign. What change is so needed that voters should disregard that?


You have brought up dishonesty several times. Are you referring to the campaign mailer that says Maritza is the only one that actively tries jury trials? I'm not sure on the numbers, but from reading the mailer, it seems to me that she conveying that she has been more active and participated in more jury trials recently and that Jarvis does not regularly try cases. That is how I am reading it anyhow. That seems to me to be a stretch to repeatedly call a candidate dishonest. Please correct me if I have anything wrong.



Aglaw09: Nowhere here have I indicated who I support. I have purposely made my posts even handed to both candidates. I have given readers a way to do foolproof research on their own that would help them make a good decision. I can't see how anyone can complain about or take issue with that.
AgLaw09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieClassOf2007 said:

You have brought up dishonesty several times. Are you referring to the campaign mailer that says Maritza is the only one that actively tries jury trials? I'm not sure on the numbers, but from reading the mailer, it seems to me that she conveying that she has been more active and participated in more jury trials recently and that Jarvis does not regularly try cases. That is how I am reading it anyhow. That seems to me to be a stretch to repeatedly call a candidate dishonest. Please correct me if I have anything wrong.
I have brought up dishonesty several times because I think it's a very important where someone is running for elected office and especially when that office is as impactful on people's lives as DA. The mailer says:

ONLY CANDIDATE
Board Certified in Criminal Law &
To Have Actively Tried Cases to a Jury

Now what Sifuentez could be trying to say is that she's the only candidate who's tried cases as a board certified attorney. Except that her website doesn't make that connection. It states that "She is also the only candidate who has actively tried cases to a jury." (I went to her campaign website to ensure the wording is exact but it says: "Coming Soon", but trouble posted a screenshot on p. 3) The insinuation is that she has tried cases to a jury and Parsons hasn't.

The mailer also states: Served as Assistant District Attorney for over 8 Years

That's not true. She was licensed as an attorney in April 2015 and left the DA's office in January 2023 according to the State Bar website and her campaign website. And now we've learned she wasn't with the DA's office during that entire time either. (When I went to her campaign website a couple of days ago there was nothing about her ever being in the CA's office. It'll be interesting to see what has changed when her website is back up.) It would have been a stretch for her to have said she was an ADA for 8 years, but her mailer says "over".

So how is it not dishonest when her campaign is being misleading about the jury trial experience between her and Parsons and is claiming she has more prosecution experience than she does?
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought they might pull the website so I got a screenshot of that as well.

[The large screen shots are making the page difficult to scroll and read. -Staff]
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And it was actually in 2 different places.

[The large screen shots are making the page difficult to scroll and read. -Staff]
ShawnTxAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
[Give an explanation for your post and it may remain on the board. - Staff]
Gunner0740
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The large screenshots that were removed by staff basically confirm that she had put in two separate places that she had been an ADA for eight years. I am sure all of the information on her website will have changed once it becomes live again.
A Net Full of Jello
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I had no problem reading the thread with the screenshoots. I think they were important to this thread because they showed multiple places on Maritza's own website where she lied about her years of experience. She has since taken down her website and will likely change the wording now that she has been called out, but I think it is important that the public know the character of the person running for District Attorney. Maritza clearly knows experience matters. It would appear she is aware that her experience is lacking, if not in her own eyes then in the eyes of the public, and she wanted to pad her resume. She got caught and is in damage control mode.

As has been stated before on this this thread, it is important to know who we are voting for. Jarvis Parsons has over 2 decades of experience in the DA's office with 12 of those being the District Attorney himself. Under his leadership, we have seen jail time for violent offenders increase substantially. He has sat first chair on many cases of domestic violence, armed robbery, child abuse, and capital murder and is the only candidate in the race to be able to honestly say that. He is competent, hard working, and honest. He has integrity and stands on his resume rather than padding it in an attempt to mislead the public. That is a person I want as my District Attorney.
A Net Full of Jello
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It has been encouraged on here that people talk to detectives and other law enforcement officers regarding who they support and why. I would also encourage that. I would also encourage people to ask employees of the District Attorney's office who they support and why. They have worked with both candidates and can give a lot of insight into competence, the manner in which they question witnesses, the effort put in, and who they would prefer to work for. I have said often on this thread that experience matters. There is a lot of experience in the DA's office. They will let you know who they believe the best candidate is.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A Net Full of Jello said:

It has been encouraged on here that people talk to detectives and other law enforcement officers regarding who they support and why. I would also encourage that. I would also encourage people to ask employees of the District Attorney's office who they support and why. They have worked with both candidates and can give a lot of insight into competence, the manner in which they question witnesses, the effort put in, and who they would prefer to work for. I have said often on this thread that experience matters. There is a lot of experience in the DA's office. They will let you know who they believe the best candidate is.



I agree. Talk to everyone in the know. Bear in mind however that employees worry about losing jobs if a new boss takes over. Not saying that will happen but that possibility could color their current thinking. Get as much info as possible. Very important race. Even a current detective may have an ax to grind. Even if I were to make a rec in the race, which I don't plan to on this board, be skeptical of that. The more info you get about both candidates the better off you'll be. Hugely important race. The DA is the most powerful office holder in the county.
Broncos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A Net Full of Jello said:

I would also encourage people to ask employees of the District Attorney's office
Based on some of the posting history and usernames I would wager that a few of them have been posting here.

Is there a way we can see some statistics involving dispositions of cases?
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Broncos said:

A Net Full of Jello said:

I would also encourage people to ask employees of the District Attorney's office
Based on some of the posting history and usernames I would wager that a few of them have been posting here.

Is there a way we can see some statistics involving dispositions of cases?



I think people very close to each side of this race are posting a lot on here. They have skin in the game. That emphasizes the fact that people need to independently investigate this and not go by what biased insiders for each candidate have to say.
A Net Full of Jello
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can affirm I do not now, nor have I ever, worked with or for the two candidates nor does (or has) anyone in my household. I do know people who have worked with both, though. The outcome of this election will effect me personally only in that I am a resident of Brazos County.
rockelle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So are you a prosecutor? Which court?
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A Net Full of Jello said:

I can affirm I do not now, nor have I ever, worked with or for the two candidates nor does (or has) anyone in my household. I do know people who have worked with both, though. The outcome of this election will effect me personally only in that I am a resident of Brazos County.


Same
histag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A Net Full of Jello said:

I can affirm I do not now, nor have I ever, worked with or for the two candidates nor does (or has) anyone in my household. I do know people who have worked with both, though. The outcome of this election will effect me personally only in that I am a resident of Brazos County.


Samesies!
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gunner0740 said:

The large screenshots that were removed by staff basically confirm that she had put in two separate places that she had been an ADA for eight years. I am sure all of the information on her website will have changed once it becomes live again.
At least the screenshot on the previous page has not been removed. They scroll fine on mobile.
AgLaw09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rockelle said:

So are you a prosecutor? Which court?

No. I don't go to court.
Hornbeck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can confirm, IANAL, nor do I play one on tv.
histag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did you forget a heart in the middle of that acronym?
TexasLE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't typically get involved in messy exchanges that accompany political races. However this particular race is critically important and clearly there is a vast amount of mis-information already circulating. As a career law enforcement officer I can confirm that Jarvis Parsons does NOT support law enforcement. He does NOT pursue cases or prosecutions that do not serve his purposes. He has failed more families and victims than can be counted and they are now coming out in force. Do your research here folks. Jarvis Parsons is a used care salesman trying desperately to spin the narrative here.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've talked to at least 10 cops actively working in Brazos county right now who disagree with you.

You want to provide some actual evidence for your claims?


Oh, and Maritza's website still has the same lies on it that it did before she took it down for almost a week.
Darth Randy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
trouble said:

I've talked to at least 10 cops actively working in Brazos county right now who disagree with you.

You want to provide some actual evidence for your claims?


Oh, and Maritza's website still has the same lies on it that it did before she took it down for almost a week.
Curious to know which agency and what position these folks hold.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Detectives (current and retired) from both CS and Bryan, 2 sheriff's deputies, 2 regular Bryan cops and 1 retired from CS.

I've got a tally going, it's 8-4 in favor of Parsons.

Edited to fix the tally. I counted someone twice.
histag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I talked to someone that brought up the issues that have been mentioned here with Parsons. Brought up the issues with Maritza's claims and their response was "well, I never said to vote for her, but I also wouldn't vote for Parsons".

I'm pretty sure we are at the point of "lesser of two bad candidates" or "the bad choice you know". Or, you know, giant meteor.

(Laughing emoji, because the only other option is to cry lol)
Darth Randy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
histag10 said:

I talked to someone that brought up the issues that have been mentioned here with Parsons. Brought up the issues with Maritza's claims and their response was "well, I never said to vote for her, but I also wouldn't vote for Parsons".

I'm pretty sure we are at the point of "lesser of two bad candidates" or "the bad choice you know". Or, you know, giant meteor.

(Laughing emoji, because the only other option is to cry lol)
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I did have one tell me that issues are getting resolved now that weren't before and it's sad that it takes actual opposition at the ballot box to bring it about but that's he's likely to vote for Parsons anyway.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I also wish there was a third choice but we've got what we've got.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
trouble said:

Detectives from both CS and Bryan, 2 sheriff's deputies, 2 regular Bryan cops and 1 retired from CS.

I've got a tally going, it's 9-4 in favor of Parsons.



What was the breakdown on just the B-CS Dectectives? Obviously, I am more interested in what the current local detectives say. They work more closely with DA's than do patrolmen and sheriff deputies that are not detectives. Officers who retired before the Floyd case national news have been gone too long to have a current opinion.


*edited to eliminate one question since it was not Trouble who posted that information. It was rather histag.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That was histag who had someone who wouldn't vote for Parsons. The guy who mentioned issues resolving to me is going to vote Parsons.

I need to go fix my other post, it's 8-4. I counted someone twice and didn't separate the retired detectives. I need to see when one retired though. It might have been post Floyd.

Among current detectives, it's 3-1 Parsons. I have to say there's not a ton of enthusiasm among them for either candidate.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
trouble said:

That was histag who had someone who wouldn't vote for Parsons. The guy who mentioned issues resolving to me is going to vote Parsons.

I need to go fix my other post, it's 8-4. I counted someone twice and didn't separate the retired detectives. I need to see when one retired though. It might have been post Floyd.

Among current detectives, it's 3-1 Parsons. I have to say there's not a ton of enthusiasm among them for either candidate.



Thank you Sir.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.