DeLay Lawyers Subpoena District Attorney Ronnie Earle

Associated Press ^ | Oct 11, 5:41 PM EDT | LARRY MARGASAK

[flattorney]

AUSTIN -- Dick DeGuerin, lawyer for indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on Tuesday subpoenaed the prosecuting Texas district attorney in an effort to show he acted improperly with grand jurors.

The subpoena for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, filed in Austin, asked that the prosecutor and two of his assistants appear in court to explain their conduct.

The lawyers, previously had filed a motion asking for dismissal of the conspiracy and money-laundering charges against DeLay, the former House majority leader who has stepped aside from that post because of the indictment.

Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, also asked that grand jurors be released from their secrecy oath so they could answer questions about the prosecutor's conduct.

[Fred Hayek]

"Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution." If it can be proven in court that Ronnie Earle was conducting baseless, politically motivated, malicious prosecution, then IMHO he should be forced to pay DeGuerin's bill. Not the taxpayers (then again the libtards in Travis County keep voting him in), but Ronnie Earle personally. There are a number of judges in Texas who have ordered prosecuting attorneys to pay the defenses' legal fees due to bringing flimsy cases (motivated in part by grudges) to court. One case the prosecutor himself did not have to pay, but it did have to come out of his department's budget. And the reimbursement could not be added to the budget, it had to come from the existing operating budget.

[moose2004]

Notice that the MSM is barely reporting this story, they know it's totally bogus. THE HAMMER ROCKS!

[Jarhead1957]

Did you ping Basil? We vote in the district where little mr earle is going to run.

[BJClinton]

Heh, your profile page is the first (other than my own) I've bookmarked.

[Arrowhead1952]

Did you ping Basil? We vote in the district where little mr earle is going to run.

We need to make sure little boy earle never gets elected ping.

[Jarhead1957]

I would have to put lloyd doggett on the list with the earles. He sure has been quiet, guess he decided to get arms length from his old friend ronnie.

Rats jump ship!!!!!

[basil]

Actually, I don't think I live in his district. I live in Lakeway. But--if his name shows up on my ballot, you can rest assured that he won't get my vote--LOL!

[Jarhead1957]

The subpoena for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, filed in Austin, asked that the prosecutor and two of his assistants appear in court to explain their conduct.

Anyone know the names of the two assistants involved in the case?

[flattorney]

Earle's two supoenaed associate's names are Rosemary Lehmberg and Rick Reed.

[Jarhead1957]

Thank you sir, now I know who not to vote for when they seek office in Travis County.

[MNJohnnie]

I just know those I pinged are Texans. I will include you from now on.

Not a Texan but have become very found of some of them the last 5 years. Will be glad to help write letters and get the word out so the weak in the knees do NOT sell Delay down the river.

[flattorney]

DeLay's Attorneys Refile Subpoenas Against DA Ronnie Earle and Two Of His Prosecutors

Wednesday, 5:11 pm CDT October 12, 2005

AUSTIN -- Rep. Tom DeLay's legal team on Wednesday refiled subpoenas trying to compel prosecutors to testify about their contact with three grand juries during an investigation of the Texas Republican.

The subpoenas were refiled to make technical corrections to the documents that contend Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acted improperly with two grand juries. Two of the grand juries filed charges and one refused.

DeLay had to temporarily step aside as U.S. House majority leader when he was charged with conspiracy and money laundering in a state campaign finance investigation led by Earle. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.

While a clerk for the grand jury had received the corrected document, a spokesman in Earle's office said he had not yet been served with the latest subpoena late Wednesday.

The subpoena was first delivered on Tuesday, but defense attorney Dick DeGuerin said Earle refused the subpoena when he declined to sign a paper acknowledging its delivery. Earle countered that he voluntarily accepted it and a spokesman in his office said a signature is not legally required to accept a subpoena.

Earle said redelivery to his office was unnecessary.

http://www.click2houston.com/politics/5091533/detail.html

~~~~~~~~
>>>Earle countered that he voluntarily accepted it and a spokesman in his office said a signature is not legally required to accept a subpoena.<<<

That is total bull as to a signature not legally be required to accept a subpoena. - fla

[Candor7]

I also posted the article to a parallel thread
" Delay Test on Delay":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498100/posts?page=58#58

In that thread there was some doubt, because of the pretrial nature of grand jury proceedings, that there would be a failure of the ripeness test for Delay to get into federal court on a Due Process issue. ( ie. that Delay would have to be in jail after sentencing before
a case could be brought in federal court!) Do you think that certiorari with mandamus in aid might be something that Guerin will pursue if he gets the evidence he needs from Earle's aids ?

I think we might be into a situation where there could be new law made here on the 14th amendment, that is if Guerin gets the evidence he's after via the subpoena process.

Wouldn't it be great if a federal court quashed the Texas indictment? I mean here we have the Republican House whip out of harness because of a politically motivated indictment? We are now living in interesting times!

[flattorney]

UPDATE: Tom DeLay Criminal Indictments Legal Documents
(Left Click to Read/Right Click To DownLoad - PDF Files)

09.28 - 1st Indictment Against Defendant, Conspiracy to Commit Felony Fraud

10.03 - Defendant's Motion to Quash (1st) Indictment For Failure To State An Offense Under Texas Law

10.03 - 2nd Indictment Against Defendant, Felony Money Laundering

10.07 - Defendant's Motion to Quash (2nd) Indictment On The Basis of Prosecutorial Misconduct

10.11 – Defendant’s Fair Notice Letter to DA Earle, Subpoena of Earle and two of his prosecutors, Rosemary Lehmberg and Rick Reed

10.11 – Defendant’s Petition For Disclosure of Information, Transcripttions and Recordings Made in Connection With Grand Jury Proceedings

10.12 – Defendant’s Court Subpeonas Filed Against DA Earle and two of his prosecutors, Rosemary Lehmberg and Rick Reed. (Documents Pending. DeGuerin indicated he did this late 10.12)

[flattorney]

UPDATE - Tom DeLay Criminal Indictments Pre-Trial Legal Documents:
(Left Click to Read/Right Click To DownLoad - PDF Files)

10.13 - Docs Pending: DA Earle Subpoenas: DeLay & Related Parties Phone Records, and DeLay Car Purchase
10.11 - Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum of Documentation and Records, et.al. of Ronnie Earle and any Member of the Travis County District Attorney's Staff relating to contact et. al. with the three GJ's, of which 2 Indicted DeLay (This is an expanded Subpoena from the previous courtesy request letter by D. DeGuerin)
10.11 – Defendant’s Petition For Disclosure of Information, Transcriptions and Recordings Made in Connection With Grand Jury Proceedings
10.11 – Defendant’s Fair Notice Letter to DA Earle, Subpoena of Earle and two of his prosecutors, Rosemary Lehmberg and Rick Reed
10.07 - Defendant's Motion to Quash (2nd) Indictment On The Basis of Prosecutorial Misconduct
10.04 - DA Earle Statement re: DeLay's 30 Day Statute of Limitations Waiver & Subsequent Withdraw
10.03 - 2nd Indictment Against Defendant, Felony Money Laundering
10.03 - Defendant's Motion to Quash (1st) Indictment For Failure To State An Offense Under Texas Law
09.28 - 1st Indictment Against Defendant, Conspiracy to Commit Felony Fraud

[mandatum]

Wondering if you could clear something up for me? Dick DeGuerin motioned to quash the conspiracy indictment on the grounds that a conspiracy charge did not apply to the Texas Election code until 2003. Why isn't DeGuerin using the same argument for the money laundering indictment? Granted, it is more fun to go after Earle for misconduct, but shouldn't DeGuerin argue in the alternative that money laundering under the penal code was not incorporated into the election code until legislative amendment in 2003?

Any help would be appreciated.