Ma'am. And you're welcome
Brazos County DA 2024 Election [Staff Warning]
56,464 Views |
317 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by befitter
Username checks out.trouble said:
Ma'am......
I've never denied it
trouble said:
Ma'am. And you're welcome
Sorry, Ma'am. My sincere apologies.
trouble said:
I also wish there was a third choice but we've got what we've got.
Boy, I could say that about a lot of races.
Bryanisbest said:trouble said:
I also wish there was a third choice but we've got what we've got.
So, Trouble, it sounds like on your research they're saying she has never been the elected DA and they don't think she's capable of doing that job versus Parsons, who has been the DA for years but they don't like the job he's done. Not a good choice either way. Does that sum up your investigation? Don't want to put words in your mouth. Just want to understand better.
It's been a little more nuanced than that. Some think he's done a good job, others think he could be better. They trust his experience overall though.
Some don't think she has the experience as an attorney to take over this role. It's not that they think she's bad overall, just not ready for what the job entails.
The ones voting for her seem to just be ready for a change. I would say they are more "not Jarvis" than "we want Maritza".
I did not get the feeling from any of them that they actively disliked either candidate.
Some don't think she has the experience as an attorney to take over this role. It's not that they think she's bad overall, just not ready for what the job entails.
The ones voting for her seem to just be ready for a change. I would say they are more "not Jarvis" than "we want Maritza".
I did not get the feeling from any of them that they actively disliked either candidate.
Thanks for your investigation. I hope more people will do the same.
Yes…a "Rookie" account. As i stated I do not typically read/follow/post in these forums. Yes…I can offer examples/data/specifics. I have not thus far and will not until I have permission from those individuals. But if you want names immediately, here's a few that have already publicly declared support for her. Judge Travis Bryan III, Shane Phelps, Sheriff Chris Kirk, Gracie Aguilar.
[Posters may give their opinions on this board and TexAgs does not remove posts because of the opinions or political choice of posters. We do not allow unsubstantiated rumors or hearsay and that statement is line 10 of the Posting Policies that all posters agree to when registering for the site. The sensitive nature of this thread is going to result in stringent moderation and any posts that are not easily verifiable will be removed. -Staff]
[When a post or part of a post contains rumor or hearsay the entire post is usually removed on this forum because it is the responsibility of the posters to follow the guidelines. We are going to reinstate the verifiable and public portion of this post but in the future if any part of a post is hearsay or rumor the entire post will be removed. -Staff]
[Posters may give their opinions on this board and TexAgs does not remove posts because of the opinions or political choice of posters. We do not allow unsubstantiated rumors or hearsay and that statement is line 10 of the Posting Policies that all posters agree to when registering for the site. The sensitive nature of this thread is going to result in stringent moderation and any posts that are not easily verifiable will be removed. -Staff]
[When a post or part of a post contains rumor or hearsay the entire post is usually removed on this forum because it is the responsibility of the posters to follow the guidelines. We are going to reinstate the verifiable and public portion of this post but in the future if any part of a post is hearsay or rumor the entire post will be removed. -Staff]
We've been through the "y'all must work for Jarvis" trope already. It's old and tired.
Great, you pulled some names from her website. The same can be done for both candidates. Some of us don't think much of some of the people supporting her.
How about you tell us, in your words, how he's unethical? If there's so much evidence of it, provide it to us.
Great, you pulled some names from her website. The same can be done for both candidates. Some of us don't think much of some of the people supporting her.
How about you tell us, in your words, how he's unethical? If there's so much evidence of it, provide it to us.
In my opinion, the DA's office is too important to trifle with. We've seen what happens with Soros-backed DAs in particular. An entire district can quickly deteriorate when an ineffective DA takes over.Bryanisbest said:
Thanks for your investigation. I hope more people will do the same.
That has not happened in Brazos County, quite the opposite. I do not see a need for change. Jarvis has my vote on March 5. It's just too important an office to trust to someone inexperienced.
I've supported Parsons in the past. There was something about his statements during the BLM protests that, if I remember correctly, made me raise an eyebrow. I guess I will have to pay for a subscription to the Eagle to read it again, though.
techno-ag said:In my opinion, the DA's office is too important to trifle with. We've seen what happens with Soros-backed DAs in particular. An entire district can quickly deteriorate when an ineffective DA takes over.Bryanisbest said:
Thanks for your investigation. I hope more people will do the same.
That has not happened in Brazos County, quite the opposite. I do not see a need for change. Jarvis has my vote on March 5. It's just too important an office to trust to someone inexperienced.
I just want more people to do their own investigation as Trouble has apparently done. You may or may not come away with the same take she did.
Two endorsements for Maritza that really matter in this race are Judge Travis Bryan (former DA back before many of our class years here) and Shane Phelps. These two men would not endorse a challenger unless there were both serious concerns about the incumbent's competency and also great confidence with the challenger.
Old Ags know Travis Bryan and Shane Phelps have always been known as tough on crime. You also have very conservative Aggie professors like Dr. Detlef Hallermann from the Mays Business School who also support Maritza. As many of us Old Ags also know, you didn't come down to Aggieland if you were going to be a troublemaker - you went to Austin.
The problem now with Jarvis Parsons is he's not pursuing cases he should have been, while his office is rather now having to spend time defending involuntary felony guilty pleas from the most vulnerable in the Brazos Valley (over Delta 8 - a substance that was legalized by President Trump and Governor Abbott - whatever you feel about that substance - it has been made legal in Texas by respected Republicans and no Republican wants false convictions where people's 2nd amendment rights are then being unjustly taken away).
Jarvis Parsons thinks Aggies and Brazos County citizens want false convictions trampling on citizens' gun rights rather than actually throwing true violent offenders behind bars like Maritza. If Jarvis Parsons is not voted out like Travis Bryan and Shane Phelps want - or if he does not change course, we're going to get a liberal Governor (like Beto O'Rourke) or other elected liberals to fix the unjust messes that Parsons has created.
I unconditionally support Maritza - because I want conservatives to still be able to hold the moral high ground of justice.
- Hershel Patel, Class of 2005
Old Ags know Travis Bryan and Shane Phelps have always been known as tough on crime. You also have very conservative Aggie professors like Dr. Detlef Hallermann from the Mays Business School who also support Maritza. As many of us Old Ags also know, you didn't come down to Aggieland if you were going to be a troublemaker - you went to Austin.
The problem now with Jarvis Parsons is he's not pursuing cases he should have been, while his office is rather now having to spend time defending involuntary felony guilty pleas from the most vulnerable in the Brazos Valley (over Delta 8 - a substance that was legalized by President Trump and Governor Abbott - whatever you feel about that substance - it has been made legal in Texas by respected Republicans and no Republican wants false convictions where people's 2nd amendment rights are then being unjustly taken away).
Jarvis Parsons thinks Aggies and Brazos County citizens want false convictions trampling on citizens' gun rights rather than actually throwing true violent offenders behind bars like Maritza. If Jarvis Parsons is not voted out like Travis Bryan and Shane Phelps want - or if he does not change course, we're going to get a liberal Governor (like Beto O'Rourke) or other elected liberals to fix the unjust messes that Parsons has created.
I unconditionally support Maritza - because I want conservatives to still be able to hold the moral high ground of justice.
- Hershel Patel, Class of 2005
Please tell me which violent cases Maritza was first chair on.
Why are Maritza and her supporters telling voters that Jarvis has never tried a violent crime? Does she not think capital murder is violent?
Why are Maritza and her supporters telling voters that Jarvis has never tried a violent crime? Does she not think capital murder is violent?
So then is it your position that Maritza has been an ADA since passing the bar?
Delta-8 is not legal in Texas. It is being allowed to be sold under a temporary injunction, granted in 2023 by a district court judge in Austin, while arguments for and against its legality will be heard by higher up courts. While I know that is a small distinction, it is important.
Secondly, I may be off, but I believe with the passing of the Morton Act, plea agreements cannot be reached prior to all evidence coming in and being discoverable by the defense, thus eliminating forced pleas to innocent people without all of the evidence being brought to light.
Lastly, to play devils advocate, why would a criminal defense attorney want someone harsher on his clients in office? So that he has a lower defense success rate or a more difficult time wagering deals for his clients. The argument that because a defense attorney supports her, Maritza is tougher on crime that Jarvis is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, I may be off, but I believe with the passing of the Morton Act, plea agreements cannot be reached prior to all evidence coming in and being discoverable by the defense, thus eliminating forced pleas to innocent people without all of the evidence being brought to light.
Lastly, to play devils advocate, why would a criminal defense attorney want someone harsher on his clients in office? So that he has a lower defense success rate or a more difficult time wagering deals for his clients. The argument that because a defense attorney supports her, Maritza is tougher on crime that Jarvis is disingenuous at best.
You're factually wrong on both points 1 and 2.
There is not and never was any injunction on any prosecutor's office or law enforcement agency in the State of Texas regarding Delta 8. The court case you may be referring to was actually in 2021 - a case that was later affirmed by the appeals court in 2023. However, that case applied to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services. That case never involved any law enforcement authority.
Thus. Delta 8 is not legal because of a "temporary injunction". It's legal because the Texas Health and Safety Code was actually amended in 2019. In multiple sessions in the Texas Legislature, there has been no successful amendment to the Code regarding hemp derived products, even though there has been in other states.
If Delta 8 were actually illegal as you say, do you really believe Tony Buzbee (Ken Paxton's impeachment defense attorney) would be selling this?
https://www.chron.com/food/article/houston-buzbee-thc-seltzer-18334589.php
I don't partake in any mind altering substances, legal or not. However, we absolutely cannot have prosecutors inventing their own laws to coerce guilty pleas or verdicts in contravention to the statutes written by the Texas Legislature. As conservatives and Republicans, if we want the law changed, we do it legislatively.
Regarding point 2, the Morton Act never eliminated all involuntary guilty pleas, and unfortunately no legislation will ever perfectly be able to do that.
I'm not sure what you mean by point 3. Of course, I want a prosecutor to be tough - tough but fair. I never want any prosecutor playing fast and loose with a strict constructionist interpretation of the law.
There is not and never was any injunction on any prosecutor's office or law enforcement agency in the State of Texas regarding Delta 8. The court case you may be referring to was actually in 2021 - a case that was later affirmed by the appeals court in 2023. However, that case applied to the Texas Department of Health and Human Services. That case never involved any law enforcement authority.
Thus. Delta 8 is not legal because of a "temporary injunction". It's legal because the Texas Health and Safety Code was actually amended in 2019. In multiple sessions in the Texas Legislature, there has been no successful amendment to the Code regarding hemp derived products, even though there has been in other states.
If Delta 8 were actually illegal as you say, do you really believe Tony Buzbee (Ken Paxton's impeachment defense attorney) would be selling this?
https://www.chron.com/food/article/houston-buzbee-thc-seltzer-18334589.php
I don't partake in any mind altering substances, legal or not. However, we absolutely cannot have prosecutors inventing their own laws to coerce guilty pleas or verdicts in contravention to the statutes written by the Texas Legislature. As conservatives and Republicans, if we want the law changed, we do it legislatively.
Regarding point 2, the Morton Act never eliminated all involuntary guilty pleas, and unfortunately no legislation will ever perfectly be able to do that.
I'm not sure what you mean by point 3. Of course, I want a prosecutor to be tough - tough but fair. I never want any prosecutor playing fast and loose with a strict constructionist interpretation of the law.
Unless I'm mistaken, Travis Bryan doesn't practice law in Bryan/College Station. Shane Phelps has a 4.9 rating on Google currently. Shane Phelps does not need Maritza (or Jarvis) to be a successful defense attorney.
Secondly, while the Morton act did not do away with voluntary guilty please it did do away with them prior to indictment and a discovery of all evidence by the defense, thus minimizing the chance of fraudulent or coerced guilty pleas.
As to the third assertion, I cannot believe you fathom to comprehend the idea that a defense attorney would err on the side of a less strict district attorney rather than a more strict district attorney, thus your assertion that because a defense attorney back a certain person it should seem them more strict in crime.
To your fourth point. You are correct, he does not practice law. Guess what he was before being a judge? A defense attorney. I highly respect Travis Bryan, however you referencing someone who had absolute immunity in his decisions does not sway me one way or the other. Mr. Bryan made decisions as he saw fit for the crime, whether it was considered tough on crime depended on the eye of the beholder. While I agree that Mr. Phelps is a tremendous defense attorney, and once great ADA, it does not negate the fact that he might be interested in a little less thorn in his side. Just because a respected defense attorney puts their backing behind someone does not inherently mean that person is more tough on crime. Is it impossible to imagine a scenario where an adversary might endorse someone easier to get along with rather than someone whose office might be more adversarial to pleas and deals?
The Texas Health and Safety Code is what governs criminal offenses for drugs in the state. The Texas Agricultural Code proscribes regulations for distributors of hemp derived products - but it does not apply to criminal offenses by private citizens.
The Texas Health and Safety Code specifically excluded any substance less that 0.3% Delta 9 THC from the definition of a controlled substance. In the Texas Health and Safety Code, there is zero mention of a distinction between smokable and non smokable.
I'm not defending how laws are written in the state at all. What happened in 2019 has caused a lot of mess. That being said, what is absolutely wrong is deviating from a strict constructionist interpretation of law to the detriment of the most vulnerable in the county who cannot afford private quality representation.
Jarvis Parsons' office has not gone after the sellers of Delta 8 in the county. He has not gone after distributors. No, instead, he went after private individuals because they were easy targets for him to ramp up his convictions statistics - even if they were false convictions.
The Texas Health and Safety Code specifically excluded any substance less that 0.3% Delta 9 THC from the definition of a controlled substance. In the Texas Health and Safety Code, there is zero mention of a distinction between smokable and non smokable.
I'm not defending how laws are written in the state at all. What happened in 2019 has caused a lot of mess. That being said, what is absolutely wrong is deviating from a strict constructionist interpretation of law to the detriment of the most vulnerable in the county who cannot afford private quality representation.
Jarvis Parsons' office has not gone after the sellers of Delta 8 in the county. He has not gone after distributors. No, instead, he went after private individuals because they were easy targets for him to ramp up his convictions statistics - even if they were false convictions.
Please, instead of alleging these atrocious and inconceivable intentional prosecutions show us the numbers.
Parsons isn't the one out arresting these guys.
You actually acknowledge there is no criminal penalty for possessing the smokable form. Apologies for not reading that initially.
I think you and I may be on the same page then that the law does not proscribe criminal penalties on possession of hemp derived products products that don't have more than 0.3% Delta 9 THC - whether we agree with that being the law or not.
If we want the law changed, and maybe it needs to be. We ask for it to be changed in the Legislature, not through coercive prosecutions in contravention of the law as written.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm#481.002
(5) "Controlled substance" means a substance, including a drug, an adulterant, and a dilutant, listed in Schedules I through V or Penalty Group 1, 1-A, 1-B, 2, 2-A, 3, or 4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or other substance containing a controlled substance. The term does not include hemp, as defined by Section 121.001, Agriculture Code, or the tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm#481.002
Sec. 121.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "hemp" means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
I think you and I may be on the same page then that the law does not proscribe criminal penalties on possession of hemp derived products products that don't have more than 0.3% Delta 9 THC - whether we agree with that being the law or not.
If we want the law changed, and maybe it needs to be. We ask for it to be changed in the Legislature, not through coercive prosecutions in contravention of the law as written.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm#481.002
(5) "Controlled substance" means a substance, including a drug, an adulterant, and a dilutant, listed in Schedules I through V or Penalty Group 1, 1-A, 1-B, 2, 2-A, 3, or 4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or other substance containing a controlled substance. The term does not include hemp, as defined by Section 121.001, Agriculture Code, or the tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm#481.002
Sec. 121.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "hemp" means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
Can y'all start a new thread to debate whether something is a drug or not?
Surely. Not trying to derail it. Was just trying to make sure both sides of a pertinent discussion were heard. Sorry.
If staff feels the need to clean up this portion of the thread I understand.
I intentionally went through this morning and edited my own posts to remove the arguing about Delta eight so that hopefully the thread could get back on track.
[We are leaving up this back and forth on this subject to this point. But it's time for everyone to move on from debating what Texas code applies to what on this particular thread. We will delete anything related to this specific exchange from this point on. -Staff]
If staff feels the need to clean up this portion of the thread I understand.
I intentionally went through this morning and edited my own posts to remove the arguing about Delta eight so that hopefully the thread could get back on track.
[We are leaving up this back and forth on this subject to this point. But it's time for everyone to move on from debating what Texas code applies to what on this particular thread. We will delete anything related to this specific exchange from this point on. -Staff]
[There is no need to keep introducing the same information or making the same statements over and over on this thread. This info has already been posted up and readers of the thread can look into the varacity of that information based on what is already posted up. Post new information or simply be a reader. -Staff]
As someone who is completing their second year of residency in Brazos County from both Williamson and Travis Counties, I'm ALWAYS skeptical of the old old guard trying to influence and push someone with little to no experience to push out an incumbent who has done a solid job in the community.
I also find it disingenuous to say, "over 8 years," as an attorney when she literally passed the bar 8 years ago this month.
I also find it disingenuous to say, "over 8 years," as an attorney when she literally passed the bar 8 years ago this month.
That last part is all it takes for me to decide if she gets my vote.
Also, how can she run on a track record of success while at the same time run on the talking points of saying that the current DA is soft on crime when she herself is an assistant DA. Doesn't that make her complicit in the alleged softness?
[If you are going to mention a "thing" you need to be specific about how it pertains to the candidates in this race and point to information they can use to verify what you are talking about. Unless you have real evidence of notable outside financial support we are not going to allow speculation of it with posts about examples not pertaining to this race and the candidates in this race. -Staff]
Parsons is pretty clear about who his supporters are. They are listed on his website.
https://parsonsforda.com/supporters/
As for Maritza, it's hard to tell who supports or endorses her. You do see who her campaign treasurer is, but that's about it. She lists no endorsements or supporters on her website.
She took that part off when she took the website down last week.
[Taken down because of a vague mention without any commentary that connects readers to the relevancy to the race. -Staff]
Charpie said:
Also, how can she run on a track record of success while at the same time run on the talking points of saying that the current DA is soft on crime when she herself is an assistant DA. Doesn't that make her complicit in the alleged softness?
She left the DA's office and went to work for the Public Defenders Office about 6 months ago. Also heard that she went to work for Parsons' DA office as intern right out of law school with view to becoming full fledged trial prosecutor. She may be counting that time in the number of years experience in DA's office.