, but I didn't realize at the time that the SCOT had already suspended the depositions and given the parties until Feb. 29 to file briefs in the matter. At least I assume that's what happened; I don't think they've set a date for arguments yet, and that's the deadline that's been reported.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton could face a potentially expensive and uncomfortable jury trial to defend himself against former deputies after a Travis County judge declined Wednesday to end the case in the whistleblowers’ favor without a trial.
The decision by Judge Catherine Mauzy means that Paxton, who announced that he won’t contest the facts behind the case, may have to be questioned on the record in open court about the allegations made by four former top deputies — something he would have avoided had Mauzy ruled in his favor.
It also means that the deputies’ attorneys could be allowed to present their evidence that Paxton improperly fired them — which they have yet to do in the three years the suit has been litigated.
Attorneys representing Paxton declined to say whether they’d appeal the decision, nor did they offer any additional comment Wednesday.
(Sharp eyed readers will have noticed that Jan Soifer issued the order on the depositions, which SCOT suspended, and Catherine Mauzy issued this ruling on Paxton's....whatever it is. It's not an MOTD, more a nolo contendre. Whatever it is, it didn't persuade the judge; and I'm not sure it can be appealed. Then again, I'm not sure what the status of this suit is. Wait, I'm getting muddled. My point was: two judges, one case. Yeah, Travis County has an "open docket," which means you get whatever district judge is available on whatever day the hearing occurs. This is normal, IOW; not aberrant. Back to the confusion...)
Without seeing the pleadings (at least), I can't begin to sort out what's going on here. Basically this is Paxton's posture:
On Wednesday, Paxton’s attorneys argued that it was within his rights to avoid a lengthy, costly trial by asking for it to be over, declining to argue over the facts presented by the plaintiffs, accept whatever damages the judge decides, and declining to appeal or contest the final ruling.
And he’s allowed by law to do that while denying the allegations at the heart of the the case, attorney Bill Hefland told Mauzy during the 40-minute hearing.
Given that, he said, there was no reason for the lawsuit to go forward — unless the plaintiffs wanted to either run up attorneys fees or use the lawsuit for their own investigations.
“We’re totally through the looking glass,” Hefland said in the hearing. “You don’t need a trial, you don't need evidence. I’m here to tell you my client concedes to the entry of judgment today, and my client waives any right to appeal that judgment. So what in the world would a trial do? What is the legitimate reason for pursuing this lawsuit and not taking the judgment? I would submit there is no legitimate reason.”
Except the baloney is never sliced so thin it only has one side:
One reason, plaintiff attorney TJ Turner responded, is that it would be impossible for the judge to even determine the damages without hearing any of the evidence in their case.
Another, he said, is that Paxton is trying to “have his cake and eat it, too” by vigorously denying what the former deputies are alleging while also trying to avoid any public airing of their arguments by suggesting he won’t argue with them about it.
“We still have to put on our case,” Turner said. “This is just the latest parlor trick in Office of the Attorney General’s quiver so that they avoid what the A.G. fears the most, and that’s testifying under oath.”
The plaintiff can always, in other words, put on their case. The defendant doesn't have to participate, or put on a defense. The "Defendant's Original Answer" I am familiar with (I think procedure has changed on this point in 30+ years) denied each and every, all and singular, the allegations made by the plaintiff, and demanded they provide evidence and proof of same in a court of law. Mind, after that, the defendant could simply refuse to further participate. This happened to me on a divorce case, where the husband lived in New England (yeah, I know; somewhere up there far from Texas is my point), and the wife was Daddy's Little Girl, and Daddy was paying a shark to be her lawyer. We lost contact with our client (husband), and asked the court to let us out of the case. He did, after a brief and unnecessary hearing so her lawyere could charge for a court appearance. Pretty sure noboby in that case ever heard from the husband again. Paxton wants to do that, but the plaintiffs want to prove their case.
So far, this matter has never gone to trial. It was going to be settled, until the Texas House refused to foot the bill for Paxton's actions. Now Paxton wants it all to go away and the only way he can do that is to tell the court to...make it go away. This is where my confusion starts. This is not a Motion to Dismiss, aimed at proving the plaintiff has no case at law. This is not a withdrawal of counsel, leaving defendant to the tender mercies of the plaintff's attorneys (no court would do that, btw). My ex-client didn't formally withdraw any contest to the divorce, he just effectively did so. But the plaintiffs are entitled to prove their case, especially if they ever want to force the State of Texas to pay for Paxton's official behavior. So this action by Paxton, as a procedural matter, as a matter of motion practice, is...huh?
I'm equally confused with the stance of the SCOT. What are they going to rule on? Whether or not Paxton can force this case to end without deposing him? Whether or not it can be ended without allowing plaintiff's to put on their case or conduct discovery at all? Frankly, this one has "BIG HORSESHIT" written all over it, just because of what the court down the street from the county courthouse is doing. The District Judge is behaving like a district judge. The Supreme Court of Texas is behaving like an arm of the Texas GOP on behalf of Kenneth Paxton, an individual.
Sure seems like they're trying to slice that one sided baloney, at least from here.
Which they pretty much did in the Kate Cox decision, so nothing would surprise me now.
