Fake Tea Party Endorses Gun Grabbing Anti-Spanking Judge

Fake Tea Party Endorses Gun Grabbing Anti-Spanking Judge

By

James Scott Trimm

The Boiling Point [Fake] Tea Party has now endorsed James Munford, the Gun Grabbing anti-spanking Associate Judge, calling him the "Best choice" for the 322^nd Family Court.

The Boiling Point Tea Party is an organization which has been called a “Fake Tea Party” by Julie McCarty, the director of Tarrant County’s premier Tea Party, the Northeast Tarrant County Tea Party. 

This so-called “Tea Party” is run by Marie Howard.  Howard has worked within the Tarrant County Republican Party and Texas in general, to thwart the efforts of the Texas Freedom Caucus and attack Conservative Heroes Jonathan Stickland and Tony Tiderholt

In September (Sept. 14, 2017) the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee joined many other Texas County GOP committees in passing an “Oust Straus” resolution, calling for Joe Straus to be replaced as speaker of the Texas House.  This resolution passed almost unanimously and soon afterward Straus announced he would not run for reelection.  Marie Howard spoke out against the resolution, made a failed motion to postpone it, and finally made a quorum call in a desperate effort to support Joe Straus and keep this resolution from being passed. Immediately upon making the quorum call, Marie Howard went back to the seating area, conferred with Jennifer Olson, who then joined her in immediately walking out, in a failed effort to deprive the body of a quorum and this stop the Oust Straus resolution. This was seen by many witnesses, and also caught on video!

Even more recently Marie Howard gave her “cone of shame award to the “Fiscal Responsibility Index- Empower Texans” criticizing their support for the Texas Freedom Caucus and what she called their “blind hatred of Joe Straus.”

In fact just a few years ago Howard's fake Tea Party endorsed Democrat Norm Lyons for Precinct 3 County Commissioner, promoting him through her Fake Boiling Point Tea Party.

The Boiling Point [Fake] Tea Party has now endorsed the Gun Grabbing Judge, calling him the "Best choice" for the 322^nd Family Court.  Munford has become known for his judicial activism and legislating liberal policies from the bench.

This Judge legislates his liberal views of child discipline from the bench.  He actually wrote a court order, not requested by either parent, which not only prohibits both parents from spanking their child, but from even sending their child to bed without dinner… or even dessert!  In fact the court order would even prohibit a parent from assigning their child extra chores!  The court order (signed less than a month ago) states:

“There shall be no corporal punishment of the child[ren].  The child[ren] shall not be hit, slapped, spanked at any time.  There shall not be any physical contact with a child.

In addition, a parent shall not use any form of punishment that would require physical style punishment or an extreme style of punishment.  For example, pushups, chin-ups, running laps, physical restraints, withholding food etc.

A parent may only use non physical means to discipline the child[ren] such as grounding, removal of privileges or “time out”.”

 (Read more about this court order by clicking here.)

In another court order which the Gun Grabbing judge signed in 2009, Gun Grabbing Munford ordered gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives:

“…the Father is not to have in his possession or control a firearm and he is placed on notice that he is not to have in his possession any firearm until such time as the injunction is resolved.  The firearms may be delivered to a third party for storage such as the paternal grandparent.”

Ives only crime was being both a father, and a gun owner.  He was not accused of threatening anyone, or doing anything inappropriate with his guns, yet the Gun Grabbing Judge was effectively stripping Ives of his second amendment rights!  Only when the NRA began backing Ives’ effort to fight the order did the Court back down and remove the Gun Grabbing provision from it!  (Read More about this by clicking here)

It is no surprise that Marie Howard’s Fake Tea Party which has actually endorsed a Democrat in the past is now endorsing the Gun Grabbing Judge or Tarrant County!

Don't take wooden nickles and don't be fooled by Marie Howard's Fake Tea Party!  James Munford is an anti-Spanking Gun Grabber who legislates his liberal policies from the bench!

James Munford: The Gun Grabbing Judge

James Munford: The Gun Grabbing Judge

By

James Scott Trimm

When liberals cannot win at the ballot box through legislation, they turn to judicial activist judges to legislate from the bench and shove their liberal agenda down our throats!  This is exactly what is taking place today with the Second Amendment. 

For example in a recent 4th Circuit case, U.S. v. Robinson, the court ruled that the police may legally frisk anyone whom they suspect is carrying a gun, and they can do so just because he is suspected of carrying a gun. In effect the court ruled exercising your Second Amendment rights is itself giving the state “reasonable” suspicion.  “Individuals who elect to carry firearms,” wrote the concurring Judge James A. Wynn Jr., must “forego other constitutional rights…”

This is the new strategy; leverage other rights against the Second Amendment until these other rights virtually eclipse the right to bear arms. 

This is what happened in a case in an Illinois Family Court in 2015.  The Family Court placed a condition on a father’s custody request that no firearms were to be kept in his home until his daughter became a legal adult.  The clause was struck from the orders by the appeals court, but the appeals court carefully avoided doing so on Constitutional grounds, finding another reason to reverse the lower court without ruling its act unconstitutional.

So you might think that this kind of ruling would only come out of a liberal court in a crazy gun control happy blue state like Chicago.  But this is happening right here in Texas.

With gun rights heroes like Jonathan Stickland and Matt Krause representing parts of Tarrant County in the legislature, you certainly would not expect this kind of ruling to come out of a Tarrant County Court. 

However Tarrant County is unfortunately also the home to James Munford, the Gun Grabbing Judge.  Munford is the Associate Judge of the 322^nd Family Court.  Each Family in Tarrant County has an elected District Court Judge, and an appointed Associate Judge.  This blogger has obtained a court order which Associate Judge Munford signed in 2009 “grabbing” Tarrant County gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives guns:

“…the Father is not to have in his possession or control a firearm and he is placed on notice that he is not to have in his possession any firearm until such time as the injunction is resolved.  The firearms may be delivered to a third party for storage such as the paternal grandparent.”

Ives only crime was being both a father, and a gun owner.  He was not accused of threatening anyone, or doing anything inappropriate with his guns, yet Gun Grabbing Munford was effectively stripping Ives of his second amendment rights!

Gun Grabbing Judge Munford has the nerve to campaign at a gun show!

This is the kind of Gun Grabbing judicial activism we have come to expect to come out of an Illinois court, not a Texas Court, and especially not one in Tarrant County!  But Gun Grabbing Munford has been ahead of the liberal curve!

This provision of the order, which originated in Munford’s Court, was carried forward by Nancy Berger, the District Court Judge for his Court, into what was to become the permanent orders.  Only when the NRA began backing Ives’ effort to fight the order did the Court back down and remove Munford’s Gun Grabbing provision from it!

You might have thought that such liberal nonsense would only come from a Democrat.  But not so, Associate Judge James Munford is a Gun Grabbing judicial activist, legislating from the bench against a parent’s right to bear arms.  Munford does not uphold the Constitution, he replaces it with his own liberal Gun Grabbing agenda!

Yet Gun Grabbing Munford actually has the nerve to campaign at gun events as if he is a friend to gun owners!  Do not be fooled by this Gun Grabbing judge!

Now this Gun Grabbing Associate Judge is running to become the District Court Judge of the 322nd Family Court!  

Munford: Liberal Rulings on Child Discipline—Anti-Spanking Judge

Munford:  Liberal Rulings on Child Discipline—Anti-Spanking Judge

By

James Trimm

One of the many reasons conservatives in the US have fought to prevent the US from ratifying the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” is that the UN Committee's interpretation of the Convention encompasses a prohibition on corporal punishment including spanking.

This Liberal war on spanking has been in the news worldwide in recent days.  A South African court recently ruled that physical discipline in the home was not in line with the South African constitution, meaning parents who spank their children in South Africa could be jailed for assault.  This was not a result of legislation but was a clear case of judges legislating from the bench.  An organization called Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) has now filed an application for leave to appeal this recent judgment.

Beware!  This war on spanking is also beginning levied right here in the USA.  In his column in the New Your Post, just three years ago, Kyle Smith wrote:

Prediction: In 10 years, it’ll be illegal to spank your kids.

Progressivism’s never-ending zeal to intrude into our lives, bust up families and force us all to march to its grim beat means that yesterday’s absurdity turns into today’s hot topic in lefty opinion magazines, which turns into tomorrow’s law.

If the people resist such a change — if an actual statute can’t be passed — that matters little. Judges will simply impose their vision on us, chiding us all for not having the imagination to recognize that what looks like a radical new policy was there all along, lacking only a wise interpreter to come along to clarify it.

(Kyle Smith; Why liberals will try to outlaw spanking; New York Post; July 26, 2014)

This is the general liberal method of operation.  If their leftist agenda cannot pass at the ballot box, then they will force that agenda upon us thru activist courts which legislate from the bench.

This is not just happening in other countries or in blue states, it is happening right here in Texas.  And not just in blue counties, this is happening right here in deep red Tarrant County! 

This blogger has obtained such a court order signed by Associate Judge James Munford less than a month ago!  In Tarrant County, James Munford’s court is one of these activist courts that legislate from the bench.  As I documented in a recent blog, Texas law allows a parent to spank and reasonably discipline their child.  This is a basic parental right. 

Yet Munford’s court wrote an order, not requested by either parent, which not only prohibits both parents from spanking their child, but from even sending their child to bed without dinner… or even dessert!  In fact the court order would even prohibit a parent from assigning their child extra chores!

The court order states:

There shall be no corporal punishment of the child[ren].  The child[ren] shall not be hit, slapped, spanked at any time.  There shall not be any physical contact with a child.

In addition, a parent shall not use any form of punishment that would require physical style punishment or an extreme style of punishment.  For example, pushups, chin-ups, running laps, physical restraints, withholding food etc.

A parent may only use non physical means to discipline the child[ren] such as grounding, removal of privileges or “time out”.

  

This is a bunch of liberal drivel we have come to expect to come out of a California court, not a Texas Court, and especially not one in Tarrant County!

You might have thought that such liberal nonsense would only come from a Democrat.  But not so, Associate Judge James Munford is an anti-spanking judicial activist, legislating from the bench against a parent’s rights to reasonably discipline their child in accordance with Texas law.  Munford does not uphold Texas law, he replaces it with his own liberal anti-spanking anti-child discipline agenda!

Now Associate Judge Munford is running to become the District Court Judge of the 322^nd Family Court!  Fortunately he is being opposed by Jennifer Moore, a true conservative Republican who supports parent’s rights and will uphold the law and the Constitution.  Moore promises that she will never legislate from the bench!

It is time for Texans to stand up against judicial activists legislating from the bench!  Join me in supporting Jennifer Moore for the 322^nd Family Court! 

The Liberal War on a Parents Right to Spank their Child

The Liberal War on a Parents Right to Spank their Child

By

James Scott Trimm

In a recent grand act of judicial activism a court in Johannesburg South Africa recently ruled that physical discipline in the home was not in line with the constitution, meaning parents who spank their children could be jailed for assault.  This was not a result of legislation, spanking has always been legal in South Africa.  This was a clear case of legislating from the bench.  Could it happen here?

The worldwide war on parental rights is moving forward.  One of the many reasons conservatives in the US have fought to prevent the US from ratifying the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” is that the UN Committee's interpretation of the Convention encompasses a prohibition on corporal punishment including spanking. 

But liberals will not be stopped that easily.  The left has been waging war on spanking for many years. 

For countless generations spanking has been a tried and true tool used by parents to discipline their children toward becoming upstanding citizens.  

Spanking goes back to biblical times and is a basic principle in the Judeo-Christian Family tradition.  One of the many biblical references is:

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

(Proverbs 22:15 KJV)

The right of Parents to rear their children as they see fit are among the most fundamental of our natural rights with which our Creator endowed us.  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.)

And in the Great State of Texas this very much includes the rights of parents to spank their children, send them to bed without desert, or do many other things that liberals don’t like.

The Texas Family Code (TFC) §261.001(1)(c) defines abuse of a child, in part, as "physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, excluding reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm.”

So does the Texas Family Code consider spanking to be “reasonable discipline”?

Yes, the Texas Family Code (TFC 151.001(e)) is clear on this:

(e)  Only the following persons may use corporal punishment for the reasonable discipline of a child:

(1)  a parent or grandparent of the child;

(2)  a stepparent of the child who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child; and

(3)  an individual who is a guardian of the child and who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child.

That’s right, the Texas Family Code specifically states that “corporal punishment” (i.e. spanking) is not abuse.

 

The Texas Penal Code also allows parents to spank their children.  The Texas Penal Code (Texas Penal Code §9.61) says:

(a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child’s parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, “in loco parentis” includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

The Penal Code allows force, but not deadly force. The Family Code allows spanking that does not cause “substantial harm”.

So what is “substantial harm?”  According to the Texas Administrative Code:

Substantial Harm. Real and significant physical injury or damage to a child that includes, but is not limited to, bruises, cuts, welts, skull or other bone fractures, brain damage, subdural hematoma, internal injuries, burns, scalds, wounds, poisoning, human bites, concussions, and dislocations and sprains.

So under the Texas Family (civil) Code a parent can spank a child as long as they do not bruise them etc,, but under the Penal (criminal) code a parent can spank their child as long as they do not do so with deadly force. 

If you have questions about any of this I suggest consulting an attorney, I am not an attorney and this blog should not be considered legal advice. 

Parents do still have the right to (within reason) spank their child or send them to bed without desert in the State of Texas.  The Texas Legislature has guarded this natural right in the Texas Criminal and Civil Law. 

But beware.  When liberals fail to strip us of our rights at the voting booth, they engage in judicial activism and seek to do so through dictators in black robes.  They already have been engaging in legislating from the bench to strip parents of the natural right to reasonably discipline their child thru spanking, or even sending their child to bed without desert.  

Its not just South Africa! Keep watching this blog. In a future blog I will document that this is happening in Texas Courts already!  Stay tuned!

For those seeking a Biblical perspective of spanking I recommend the Focus on the Family web site. http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/effective-biblical-discipline/effective-child-discipline/biblical-approach-to-spanking

Judicial Ethics or Free Speech Rights?

Judicial Ethics or Free Speech Rights?

By

James Scott Trimm

A certain local organization famous for slandering several of our Family Court judges, has made many attacks accusing Tarrant County judges of having violated ethics rules of judicial canons because they have been involved in political organizations, made political statements and donated money to political candidates.

While it is true that these things are prohibited by various state and federal judicial canons, codes of ethics etc. the US Supreme Court has ruled that these kinds of restrictions on a judge or judicial candidate’s first amendment rights are unconstitutional.

Back in 1996 a man named Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Wersal distributed literature criticizing a number of Minnesota Supreme Court decisions.

Minnesota had a provision in its Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from discussing his or her views on a political issue. An ethics complaint was filed against him, but it was dismissed.

Two years later, in 1998, Wersal ran again, but this time he preemptively filed suit in Federal District Court against the chairperson of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards. Wersal alleged that the Minnesota code limited his right to free speech. The Republican Party of Minnesota joined Wersal's lawsuit, argued that the code prevented the Party from learning a candidates views on the issues, and therefore from making an informed decision regarding his candidacy.

The case ultimately went to the US Supreme Court which, in a June 2002 decision ruled that this provision of Minnesota’s Code of Judicial Conduct violates the First Amendment saying that such a restrictive code "burden[ed] a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms -- speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office."

This ruling made it clear that Judges and Judicial candidates have first amendment rights, just like everyone else.  They can make political statements, endorse candidates and take part in political organizations, just like anyone else.

So what about political donations?  Well in 2010 in Citizens United v. FEC the US Supreme Court found that money is speech.  Political donations are a form of speech, and therefore when one combines these two Supreme Court rulings, it become clear that a judge or judicial candidate has a right to make political donations, and that those political donations are can no more be limited in their amount, than a person can limited as to their amount of free speech.

If you believe in the US Constitution, if you believe in the freedom of speech for all Americans, you should never criticize a judge or judicial candidate as “unethical” simply because they have exercised their Constitutional rights to free speech.

Newly Revealed Documents: The Munford PPT Connection

Below is a blog that I published and then within 
a few hours unpublished just over two years ago.
I am re activating it now.

I unpublished the blog when I got a call from my friend
Gerald Haddock asking me to, as a personal favor,
take it down, because his wife Associate Judge
Diane Haddock was being threatened with being fired over it. 
But since Judge Haddock was later fired over
her husband's opposition to Munford anyway,
I am now putting it back up because
the truth should be known.

One other fact in retrospect:
The organization known as PPT mentioned in the blog
essentially ceased operations immediately after Munford
won the election.

Newly Revealed Documents: The Munford PPT Connection

By

James Scott Trimm

In recent days there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the involvement of Terry Munford and Protective Parents of Texas in the campaign of James Munford (Terry’s husband) for Family Court Judge.

Terry Munford, on Campaign Trail with James Munford.

The sad truth is that we have a candidate for District Judge in Tarrant County Family Court (322^nd District) whose campaign is in collusion with Protective Parents of Texas.  He is endorsed by PPT, PPT runs cover for him, his wife Terry Munford, who is active in his campaign, is a known associate of PPT leaders and in her efforts to keep her husband’s campaign clear of a challenger, has joined in their slanderous attacks on Tarrant Family Court Judges, especially Diane Haddock. 

Had the Munford campaign engaged directly in the same types of dishonest edits and false statements in campaign messages, it would be a violation of Texas ethics laws.  Yet Terry Munford and PPT has smeared Tarrant County Judges in an effort to keep the playing field free of competition for James Munford. 

Terry Munford campaigning for her husband.

Protective Parents of Texas (PPT) is an infamous political organization run by Jennifer Olson.  Olson is a Family Violence Activist who was herself arrested last year for Family Violence.  PPT has frequently and regularly slandered many of our Family Court Judges. This organization has falsely accused Judge Haddock of being responsible for the death of a child, in a case that was actually settled out of court.  They have also attacked judge Wells for her handling of a case that was settled out of court.  PPT has gone so far in attacking Judge Haddock as to make dishonest audio edits in an attempt to make it appear that she said things she did not say.  This is an organization that has even directed its readers to an extremely anti-Semitic website that refers to the Jewish people as “the eternal parasite”. 

Protective Parents of Texas is not a Republican Organization.  In fact, in the same thread in which PPT recently endorsed James Munford, they admitted that they only prefer Democrats, but only endorse Republicans because Tarrant County is too conservative for Democrats. PPT  does not believe in limited government and personal freedom.  They do not hold to core Republican principles, and they do not agree with key planks in the Texas Republican Party Platform concerning parents’ rights, family sovereignty, judicial restraint, and Texas Sovereignty specifically in regards to Texas Family Law. In fact, PPT has begun a campaign to federalize Texas Family Law (in direct conflict with the Texas GOP platform).

PPT Endorsed James Munford

Recently PPT has claimed that they do not endorse candidates, but on September 8^th 2017 they made a statement that any reasonable person would have to interpret as an endorsement.  PPT said “Before you vote or endorse candidates, always do your homework. Luckily for Tarrant County voters, Diane Haddock has an opponent for the 322rd District Court: JAMES B MUNFORD."

Then on September 12th 2017, I wrote a blog recommending that James Munford renounce this endorsement from Protective Parents of Texas.  Just a few days later, on September 14th 2017, I approached Munford at the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting, and we discussed the endorsement and my blog.  At this meeting Munford told me that he could not renounce the PPT endorsement because of “ethics rules” yet I have checked the rules of both the Texas Ethics Commission and the Texas Judicial Ethics Commission and can find no rule that would prohibit a judicial candidate from renouncing an endorsement.

Terry Munford, on Campaign Trail with James Munford.

While PPT regularly attacks many of our other Family Court judges, they go to great lengths to cover up for Munford.  When disgruntled litigants complain about other Family Court Judges, PPT is quick to air their grievances and share their comments.  But disgruntled litigants from Munford’s Court cannot get the time of day from PPT.  PPT does not share their complaints, but simply sweeps them under the rug.  This is not because there are no such complaints about Munford.  In fact there is blog by a disgruntled Berger/Munford litigant, with many comments from other disgruntled litigants, making very similar complaints to the ones PPT regularly shares about other judges (Click here to see it.)

The connection between PPT and James Munford should not be a surprise to most who are politically involved in the Tarrant County GOP.  James Munford’s wife Terry Munford and PPT director Jennifer Olson are known associates.

James and Terry Munford

This blogger has obtained a copy of a signed, sworn affidavit concerning Terry Muford.  This affidavit reveals a conversation that took place between that Affiant and Terry Munford as Terry Manford and Jennifer Olson were standing together.  In this conversation the Afiant reveals Mrs. Munford claimed that Tarrant Family Court Judges take bribes and come to work and sit on the bench drunk. Mrs. Munford also claimed that Diane Haddock had taken a bribe to grant a mother custody of a little girl who later died (clearly speaking of Leiliana). Munford also said that she and Jennifer Olson had taped family court hearings (which is illegal) and that Texas State Representative Jonathan Stickland had essentially sold his votes to Empower Texans! These statements are not only slanderous but are unbecoming of the spouse of a Family Court judge;

Redacted Facsimile of the actual affidavit.

This blogger has verified that the people in question were in fact at the place and time given in the affidavit with the Affiant.  The Affiant appears to have nothing to gain from her statements.  I spoke with the Affiant in a coffee shop for two hours.  She seemed not only sincere, but visibly upset at these things that had been said by the wife of a judge and judicial candidate about Tarrant County Judges and a Texas State Representative.   The Affiant’s account has the ring of truth as well.  The statements the Affiant attributes to Terry Munford attacking Tarrant Family Court Judges and Jonathan Stickland have strong parallels in past statements made by Terry Munford associates Jennifer Olson and Marie Howard.

The statements made in this Affidavit are bolstered by another document recently obtained by this blogger.  This blogger has learned that days after publication of my blog An Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock (published July 21^st 2017), Terry Munford was asked to make  a statement renouncing certain attacks on the Tarrant County Judiciary She was asked to do this to clear the air from the atmosphere of antagonism she had stirred up against the Tarrant County Family Court judges in cooperation with her friends in the PPT.  Munford’s political advisor Craig Ownsby initially agreed to recommend that Terry make such a statement.  In the conversation with Ownsby, Munford was present and seemed to agree by not raising any objections.  However in the end, Terry Munford refused to make such a statement.

One can only conclude that the Munford’s have collaborated with PPT in order to slander the judiciary and keep the field open for Munford’s run for the 322^nd Judicial Court.

Will someone who is not endorsed by PPT please run for the 322^nd Court.  Tarrant County voters deserve to have the choice from which they have thus far been robbed by this unethical collusion.