Stupid Lawyers

Well some lawyers don't get it. According to this blog from a Houston attorney, a second complaint against me is in the works.

The Harris County Criminal Lawyers' Association is going to be filing a complaint against Judge Keller with the Commission on Judicial Conduct on Monday. Tomorrow from about 10:30 a.m. to about noon I will be in the ready room on the 7th floor of the Harris County Criminal Courthouse, 1201 Franklin Street at San Jacinto, with a copy of the complaint for you to sign.

It seems that Texas lawyers don't have anything better to do other than filing complaints against me for letting a convicted bastard go to hell. oh yea in case you didn't know, that bitch's name is Michael Richard. Don't they ever consider that someday soon or later they might come to my court with their cases? I am going to write down the names of any lawyers who sign a complaint against me. If they come to my court any time soon, I am "closing" at 4:45. And that includes you Mr. Dick DeGuerin!

You think I am kidding? Last year, right before the election, I called the DPS on a myspace profile that was criticizing me. I don't stand for criticism. I just might call the DPS again.

Some people say I should give up my position as the presiding judge because I have failed in leadership and teamwork. However I have led the other members of the Court of Criminal Appeals several times to vote against granting new trials to people who claim they are innocent. For instance, I voted to execute Kerry Max Cook, Ernest Willis, Anthony Graves and Cameron Todd Willingham. Some federal court overruled me on the first three, but Willingham is dead and you can thank me. Of course, I led the Court to deny a new trial for Roy Criner, but Governor Bush granted him clemency and let him go. That was the case where there was DNA evidence that exonerated Criner, but I don't care too much about science. I never got good grades in science classes. I just don't get that stuff. I may not understand a lot about science, but I understand promiscuity. Criner's victim was promiscuous, so we don't know who she had sex with, plus Criner could have used a condom, although that never came up at the trial level, but I convinced the rest of the CCA members to believe the possibility that Criner used a condom and to deny him a new trial. Do you know how hard it is to convince an appellate court to base a decision on facts that were not presented at the trial? I am a born leader.