The Truth about Judge Wells: Who’s Watching the Watchers?

The Truth about Judge Wells

Who’s Watching the Watchers?

By

James Scott Trimm

Family Court judges interact with people in what is often one of the worst experiences of their lives.  The cases often involve people with seemingly conflicting rights over the same property and more importantly, their children.   The dilemma of child custody disputes goes all the way back to the times of Solomon (1Kings 3:16-28).  Unfortunately half of disputants leave Family Court unhappy.  In fact, often, both parties leave unhappy.  When people are caught in emotionally wrenching situations and are disappointed by the outcome, it is easy for them to interpret their disappointment as “injustice” and this has led to a subculture of Family Court haters. 

The anti-Family Court subculture has formed an organization in Tarrant County which operates under the names Protective Parents of Texas (PPT) and Protective Parents Coalition (PPC) which maintain a groups of self-proclaimed “court watchers.”  Jennifer Olson who was one of the co-founders of the group largely leads the group.  In a recent article I documented that Jennifer Olson, who is a family violence activist, was herself arrested just last year for family violence. 

Much of this sub-culture is made up of former litigants in Family Court, who were personally disappointed by the outcome of their family court cases, and emotionally feel that their outcome was “injustice.”  This is a subculture of people that simply harbor an irrational hatred for family court judges.  One of the lightning rods for this subculture to hate on has been Judge Judith Wells of the 325th District Court.  This may be in no small part because Jennifer Olson’s most recent divorce and child custody dispute was handled by Judge Wells' 325th District Court. 

In my own investigations, I have discovered that PPT /PPC has been less than honest in its representations concerning Judge Wells.

For example, one Wells case famously cited by PPC/PPT is 325-371563-04 (Archer v Archer).  PPC/PPT recently shared a video of Ms. Archer saying:

Wendy Archer, has spoken out on this page of the trauma induced by Judge Judith Wells to her family. Presented below is a video with Ms Wendy Archer. We appreciate her speaking out and she continues to be an advocate for children and families that are being traumatized by the Tarrant County Family Court.

In the video Archer explains how she appealed her case in Wells' Court to the Appeals Court and even to the Texas Supreme Court, but lost both appeals.  She claims this demonstrates the “…corrupt culture in the Tarrant County Family Courts which are closely connected all the way up to the State Supreme Court of Texas.”

What PPT/PPC doesn’t tell you is that Archer actually settled her case out of court.  (It is amazing the number of cases that PPC/PPT cites as examples, which were actually settled out of court.)  In this case Archer had become dissatisfied with the Amicus Attorney who had been appointed to represent the interests of the children.  Archer was unhappy with the fact that the Amicus Attorney representing the best interests of the children, was to her view, “aligned with” the children’s father in "her desire for the children to live primarily with the father.”  When Wells did not entertain her desire to remove the Amicus attorney, Archer filed a motion to have Wells herself recused.  When Judge Welker denied that motion, Archer appealed that ruling to the Appeals Court which said:

Appellant Wendy Jo Archer attempts to appeal from denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge in cause number 325-371563-04.   Judge Jeff Walker heard appellant's motion and denied it on April 16, 2010.   Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and on May 12, 2010, we notified the parties of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.   We also stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before May 24, 2010, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.   No response has been filed.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or order.   Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001).   An order denying a motion to recuse is an unappealable interlocutory order.  Hawkins v. Walker, 233 S.W.3d 380, 401 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied).   Specifically, rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final judgment.”  Tex.R. Civ. P. 18a(f);  see Hawkins, 233 S.W.3d at 401.   Because the order from which appellant attempts to appeal is an unappealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Still not satisfied, Archer appealed this to the Texas Supreme Court, which also denied her appeal for the same reason.

What PPC/PPT does not tell you is that Wendy Archer ultimately signed an agreement settling out of court, and of course you cannot appeal an out of court settlement, that is why it is an agreement. In the end Judge Wells simply signed off on the agreement Wendy Archer agreed to out of court, as Texas law generally compels judges to do.

In another recent posting in their "Vote No" to Judge Wells campaign, PPT/PPC shares an article about a “Texas Supreme Court ruling handed down on Judge Judith Wells” as if it is recent news (it actually happened way back in 2008).  

  

It appears that for Protective Parents of Texas, if the Texas Supreme Court upholds Wells' decisions, it is evidence of a “corrupt culture… all the way to the State Supreme Court of Texas.”   But the Texas Supreme Court reverses Wells, this is evidence that she is a bad judge.  This is what passes for rational thinking in the PPT/PPC pitchfork-crowd culture.

Who's watching the watchers?.... I am!

An Attack on Parental Rights

An Attack on Parental Rights

By

James Scott Trimm

In my most recent blog, The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock, I wrote:

I fear that because a tragedy occurred, many now ask why the government did not prevent it.  But remember, it is not the government’s job to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  And we do not want to exchange the sanctity of parental rights for more security, even for children.

The road being paved by these ostensibly “good intentions” ultimately leads to an erosion of a parent’s right to raise their children according to their own conscience.   

This is accented by one reader’s reaction to my blog as it was posted on the Tarrant Families Matter Facebook Page by Erinn Hall, a self-described “child welfare” worker.  She responded to my blog writing:

Kids have zero rights. A parent's liberty is not more important than a child's safety and welfare. It's not a "nanny state" that protects children. It's what we are all supposed to be called to do. These ideals are cute but only serve to allow people to turn a blind eye & leave kids in unhealthy, dysfunctional environments only to grow up and continue a cycle that drains our system and turns forgotten/ignored/abused kids into messed up adults. It's not right and it's not an invasive nanny state - it's morality.,,,

I work in child welfare. People rarely intervene when they should. Adult rights win over children's far more often than is appropriate. Any use of the "nanny state" scare is inappropriate where kids are concerned. Especially in a culture that uses religion for so many other issues & initiatives (teaching certain subjects in school, abortion, access to birth control, vaccinating your kids, etc.). These moral crusades should set out to save & protect kids rather than shield judges & parents who aren't doing their jobs.

Beware!  These people want the government to interfere in your religious upbringing of your own children.  They want the government to control what your children are taught.  They don’t want you to be allowed to homeschool.  They want  the government to decide whether or not to vaccinate your children.  They want government to guarantee your child’s right to get an abortion without your consent.  They want the government to provide your child birth control without your consent. 

These people think that parents who don’t send their kids to public school, who don’t vaccinate, who do not allow their children access to birth control and even abortions “aren’t doing their jobs” and that judges should be removing their children from their homes.

Don’t be fooled into following a path that leads to the destruction of the American Family as we know it. 

The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock: A Liberty Perspective

The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock:

A Liberty Perspective

By

James Scott Trimm

The tragic and senseless death of four-year-old Leiliana Wright has created unfair vitriol against two of our Tarrant County Family Court judges, with Judge Haddock being the target of particularly harsh attacks.  

I have taken time, over the last several months, to look at this case in depth.  I believe I have been very fair in my investigation and conclusions.  That said, there is much in this case that has been said based on unsubstantiated claims.  In my analysis I have tried to stick to the facts and stay away from the “he said” “she said” elements.

I want to also say that my views are very much colored by my underlying philosophy of more freedom and less government. 

I do not believe in the doctrine of a nanny state.  It is not the function of government to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  Tragic things happen in the world, and this was among the most tragic.

However it has been rightly said “He who exchanges a little liberty for security will find that in the end, he no longer has either one.” 

We do not want to give the government more power and authority over our children, while subtracting from the rights of parents (and by extension, grandparents). 

Parental rights are among the most fundamental of our natural rights with which we were endowed by our Creator.  John Locke put it like this:

Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being, to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his action according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who were all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them….

This is that which puts the authority into the parents’ hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should need to be under it.

(John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, first published in 1690)

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of parental rights.  In 1925 the US Supreme Court said:

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), at 535.)

in 1972 the US Supreme Court declared:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

(Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), at 232.)

In 1979 the US Supreme Court also said:

The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children...

Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.

(Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), at 602-3.)

And in 2000 the Court declared that “the liberty interest… of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), at 65.)

I fear that because a tragedy occurred, many now ask why the government did not prevent it.  But remember, it is not the government’s job to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  And we do not want to exchange the sanctity of parental rights for more security, even for children.

This whole knee-jerk reaction has reminded me of reactions to mass shootings in which the media and Democrats immediately start using it as a talking point for gun control.  I am also reminded of how much liberty and rights are stripped from us with the excuse that it is “for the children.”  I can tell you that for personal reasons, no one is more defensive of abused children than I am.

The law in Texas rightly requires Family Court judges to defer to an agreement reached by the parties. This is the way we want it in Texas.  We do not want the government being proactive and overriding the rights of parents in regards to their own children.  And we do not want judges who override the law. 

This is what happened in this case.  The parties reached an agreement, and Judge Haddock followed the law in signing off on their agreement. 

Yes, tragedy struck.  But Judge Haddock is not at fault here.  The fact that tragedy occurs does not automatically mean that the government should have prevented it.  This is a dangerous world.  But in the end it is a far better world if we preserve liberty and the natural rights of parents. 

Yes Trasa Cobern Voted to Raise Taxes

Yes Trasa Voted to Raise Taxes

For those who do not know, Trasa Robertson Cobern is the RINO member of the Hurst City Council who Tim O'Hare, the Tarrant County Republican Party Chair, has recently appointed to chair the Tarrant County GOP Outreach Committee.

In an email sent out by Trasa to Tarrant County Precinct Chairs today, Trasa claimed:

This claim by Trasa is to say the least apocryphal, and to say the most, wildly inaccurate.

In 2016 Tarrant County Property values went up by about 12 percent.  On Sept 13 and 27, 2016, Trasa voted yes on both the first and second readings on a tax *rate* that was 2.2 cents lower per $100 than the previous year.  So property values increased by 12% but Trasa voted to lower the *rate* by a fraction of a percent, meaning that this was actually a tax increase. She also voted in favor of a 6.7 percent "increase in the tax rate."

-----------------

In the video below Trasa can be heard making the motion

 
The effective tax rate from the ordinance 
for which Trasa voted in favor

 was an increase of nearly 8% !

Wake up my fellow Executive Committee Members.  
We are being lied to!

The Soul of the Tarrant County Republican Party is at Stake

Voting and Position Documentation for Trasa Robertson Cobern

I would like to apologize to the Republicans of Tarrant County. I failed you. At our recent Executive Committee meeting our County Chair Tim O'Hare appointed Trasa Roberts Cobern as a county vice chair to chair our Outreach Committee. This appointment required a ratifying vote from the entire Executive Committee. None of us knew ahead of time that this woman was being appointed.

I was one of a handful of committee members who knew who this woman is. (Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing personally against Trasa. I went to school with her husband Kyle back in the '80's and from my experience with her she is a very nice lady.) However I have also followed her voting record on the Hurst City Council, and am otherwise familiar with, and have documentation of, her political positions. Trasa is a public school teacher who regularly supports the teachers union talking points against our platform. She supports red light cameras. She voted to extend a juvenile curfew that would affect home schoolers. She voted in favor of a law against using hand held electronic devices while driving. She voted to regulate lenders. She voted for several ordinances to regulate how people can use their own property, including an ordinance against a person parking their own car in their own driveway unless the car has current license plate, registration and inspection. She voted to increase the tax rate and she has never voted 'no' to a single spending proposal. Moreover it has been widely rumored that this person was considering running against conservative hero Jonathan Stickland for State Representative of HD 92.

I should have taken action at the meeting but instead I was like a deer in the headlights, in disbelief about what Tim was doing. Most of the rest of the EC knew nothing about this woman except that Tim was presenting her as ideal for the job. With no debate or discussion the vote was taken, and I was one of a handful of persons to vote "no". (Again, Trasa is a nice person, but her publicly stated views and voting record do *not* reflect the core party values of our Party Platform. She is not well suited to chair a committee in our party.)

Tim either failed to effectively vet this appointee, or he knew her views and record and appointed her anyway. Neither of these is good. But for my failure I take responsibility. I must learn the rules and be more effective in the future.

As requested by many, here is my documentation:

Trasa on Red Light Cameras:

On Feb. 9th 2016 while Trasa was running for Hurst City Council, I asked her about her position on Red Light Cameras.  She responded "I believe in obeying current laws, so red light cameras are a non-event to me if they are the law."

Trasa excited to take her Students to Liberal events:

Trasa was very psyched to be able to take students to two events featuring Liberal jornalist Bob Woodward and Liberal Supreme Court Justice, Clinton Appointee Stephen Breyer.  She thanks the liberal Globalist World Affairs Council (George Soros group) for the tickets.  (Aug. 30 2016)

 Trasa on Radical Islamic Terrorism:

On June 4th 2017 Trasa reacted to the terrorist attack in London by buying a T-Shirt that presents a false sense of equivalency between Christianity, Islam and Judaism:

Trasa and Teachers Union

Trasa supports the Teachers Union ("Association") using the State to collect its dues On March 31st 2017 she  posted:

Trasa Opposed Tax Relief Bill (SB 2) in the 85th Session (A Priority Platform Item)

Trasa: Tax Borrow and Spend

When I asked Trasa her position on the growing city debt on Feb. 9th, 2016 when she was running for City Council, she said "[I am] Opposed to proliferate spending, the city needs to tighten up. Just because you have money doesn't mean you should wildly spend it."

But once in office, Trasa never voted against a single spending proposal, not even once.  

And on Sept. 13th 2016 Trasa voted to increase the property tax rate

More of Trasa's Hurst City Council Voting Record:
 

 June 28th 2016 Voted in favor of a juvenile curfew that would affect home schoolers.

July 12th 2016 Voted in favor of a ban on using a handheld device while driving.

Sept. 27th 2016 made motion to raise the effective property tax rate by 6.7 percent and then voted for this tax increase.

Oct. 11th 2016 Voted to regulate lenders.

Oct 25th 2016 Voted on an ordinance to penalize people for parking their own vehicles on their own property without current license plate, registration and state inspection

Oct. 25th 2016 Voted to regulate the height of tree branches.

Oct. 25th 2016 Voted to regulate "dead trees" on private property.

Oct. 25th 2016 voted yes on Local Control Resolution 

Her Voting Record is Online Here:

Hurst City Council Minutes 2016 Click Here

Hurst City Council Minutes 2017 Click Here

LGBT Mag Admits Gay Marriage Ruling Unconstitutional

The Texas Sovereignty Act (HB 2338 and SB 2015) may well be the most important bill filed in the Texas Legislature in this 85th Legislative Session.  This bill would rein in the overreach of the federal government by creating a permanent legislative committee that would review federal acts by any branch of the federal government to determine if they are constitutional.  If a federal act is found to be unconstitutional it would become illegal to spend any federal money or resources enforcing it, and it would become a violation of the Texas Official Oppression Act and any other applicable laws for anyone to attempt to enforce that federal act.

The Associated Press recently published an article on the Texas Sovereignty Act which has appeared in many publications such as Fox News and which has been rebutted by both the Tenth Amendment Center  and the New American Magazine.

Outsmart Magazine, a Houston LGBT Magazine, ran the AP article with a very interesting Title "Bill Would Allow Texas To Ignore Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Other Federal Laws"

Outsmart Magazine (an LGBT magazine) seems to have "out smarted" themselves.  Since the Texas Sovereignty Act would only allow Texas to nullify unconstitutional laws, the headline Outsmart gave to the AP article admits that the Supreme Court's Gay Marriage ruling is unconstitutional!