Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #6 7-26-2011)
By
This is the sign that is costing the Russells over $7,300
In a recent verdict, a North Texas couple located in Parker County found out just how much their Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Speech could cost them after posting a sign simply stating, “WAKE UP AMERICA – Defend Your Liberties” which promotes Glenn Beck’s wake up America project. All of a sudden this sign became an issue after the sign had already been in place for nearly three years.
During a phone conversation with Clara Russell, she told me that she had purchased the sign after attending a Fort Worth, Texas 912 Project Rally. She was so inspired by the gathering, the quality of people, and the message, she felt she needed to do her part and purchased the sign. That was the beginning of this story that has taken a surprise turn for Clara and her husband Johnnie, but far from the end with the recent verdict passed down from a recently elected Justice of the Piece, Judge Lynn Marie Johnson of Pct. 4, having found in the favor of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association who had filed a lawsuit against the Russells for breaking the rules of the HOA. The costs to the couple? A whopping $7,323.00 for posting a simple non-political sign while others in the community, including the President of the HOA, had signs in their yards.
Judgement against the Russells by Judge Marie Lynn Johnson Pct. 4
In an email from Clara, detailing what had transpired, she tells me,
“My husband Johnnie and I moved out of the City into the Country for some space and a seemingly quiet lifestyle. In our request to our Realtor, there was a short lists of deal breakers. Obviously, cost was number one. The second item was we wanted a place with NO HOA! (we executed a contract with the builder, and it is CLEARLY MARKED NO HOA)”
which is quite clear in the Russell’s sales contract as seen below…
Click on the image to see for yourself
Initially I told Clara that I most likely would not have the time to do a story on her case until she began providing some details about the Judge and had told me how she had found out that Judge Lynn Marie Johnson had been previously registered as a Democrat and only recently joined the GOP in order to get elected in a largely conservative area (I along with others are still working to try and verify this statement). Mrs. Russell also explained how the judge had come back from a lunch break with pages in a book already marked prior to the end of the trial or final statements had been given as if Judge Johnson had already reached a verdict on her case. I can assure you that both of these comments were quick to catch my attention at which time I told Clara I would make time to get her story out since I have personally taken a strong stance against activist judges because they are the ones who are tearing down the pillars of our U.S. Constitution (See: Judgeless in Iowa: Making Sense of Tuesday’s Judicial Ouster). As of the last update from Clara, there are many others who are not taken this issue lying down, either.
What have others said about the Russell lawsuit?
Fox News of Dallas-Forth Worth Reports: Homeowners Sued for Political Sign
WFAA of Dallas-Forth Worth Reports: North Texas couple ordered to pay $7,200 for yard sign
Bud Kennedy reported in the Star-Telegram: Free Speech not cheap in Parker County neighborhood
Mr. Kennedy’s story (linked above) was the most thorough to date, but Bud did fall short when he stated, “…a Tea Party-like group…”. Please see the following link for a better understanding of the 912 Project 9 Principles and 12 Values of the 912 Project or visit the National 912 Project to read their about page for details.
Interesting enough, this is not the first time this particular Homeowners Association has made the news for lawsuits against it’s residents or taking a stance against citizen’s Constitutional Rights – Gun enthusiast not a fan of new ordinance.
Update: Corrections made to Judge’s name.
Update (11-21-2011 7:47 am cst): The Blaze has now picked up this story – TX Homeowner Fined $7,000 for Displaying Sign Associated With Glenn Beck
Update (11-21-2011 8:25 am cst): The Russells will be meeting with a real estate attorney this morning, who is very interested in their case, with a focus of getting this case moved to a different court for fear that the couple will not receive a fair trial in the current court.
Update (11-21-2011 12:15 pm cst): The Blaze has updated the story (seen in previous update above) with exciting new details that Mrs. Russell had uncovered last night and additional details on the case that I had not yet published. More news and updates to come late tonight.
Update (11-22-2011): There have been too many updates so I’ve added a new up-to-date story with additional details of a possible conflict of interest that were previously left out of the this story. Click this story for more: Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued
UPDATED (11-26-2011):
I have also received word of a defense fund being set up for the Russells to assist with their legal fees:
Clara Russell Defense Fund
PO Box 150471
Ft. Worth Texas 76108
There are also requests asking who to contact in order to file complaints:
District Attorney’s Office:
Don Schnelby
117 Fort Worth Hwy
Weatherford, TX 76086
(817) 598-6124
Other Chapters in this ongoing story:
- This story: Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #5 7-22-2011)
- Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued (Update #1)
- The Conflicts of Interest Keep Getting More Interesting when in Parker County, Texas
- Clara Russell Makes it onto Glenn Beck and Doug Giles to Tell Her Story
- Taking a Better Look into Conflicts of Interest in Parker County, Texas Regarding Russell Case
Other stories of interest:
- Couple Sued for “WAKE UP AMERICA” sign to appear on GBTV
- Looking into the Board Members (Bullies) of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association (Update)
- Clara Russell Makes it onto Glenn Beck and Doug Giles to Tell Her Story (Updated)
- The Conflicts of Interest Keep Getting More Interesting when in Parker County, Texas
- Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued (Update #1)
By clicking the tip jar to the right to the right you can help to keep this site alive.
The Remuda HOA is not the largest or richest HOA in the nation, but it is most certainly the most vindictive, mean spirited and progressively intrusive. They are a bunch of petty despots who wish to control every aspect of the Remuda residens’ lives. Even though the membership is voluntary, when I opted out, the secretary wrote me a letter telling me that the only way to NOT be a member was to sell my propert or die. I don’t intend to do either any time soon. If a fight is what they are looking for, and I’m sure it is, they have found one. They have spent the resident’s gas bonus money on attornies for small claims court when they didn’t need one. They are shameless and need to be disbanded.
[...] Defend Your Liberties” which was part of a project Glenn Beck had launched and encouraged The 912 Project groups around the country to get involved in. The Russells had attended a local Fort Worth rally [...]
Do these guys have a trial attorney helping them, or doing everything pro se? I’d love to get involved.
She has a very good attorney working with her (mine) but if you think you can help, jump right in. We’ll take all the help we can get in ridding ourselves of this abomination.
[...] Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #5 7-22-2011) [...]
Out of curiosity, what did the Abstract of Title say regarding restrictions, including a Home Owners Association or are there any other similar restricting covenants recorded in the county clerk’s office related to the deed for their property?
[...] Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #6 7-26-2011) [...]
[...] Defend Your Liberties” which was part of a project Glenn Beck had launched and encouraged The 912 Project groups around the country to get involved in. The Russells had attended a local Fort Worth rally [...]
[...] area. They also claimed that they never paid dues to an HOA or signed membership papers with an HOA. Clara and Tommie Russell actually offered proof that there was not an HOA when they purchased their [...]
This scandal is extremely exaggerated and the criticism of Lynn Johnson is unnecessary if one examines the entire story instead of getting one’s evidence from one side. Lynn Johnson’s judgment was not based on political views. It was based on the law. It is irrelevant whether this couple was or was not a member of the HOA. The deed restrictions of the property stated that no signs were allowed to be in the front lawn. The only exception was if the sign was a for sale sign. The HOA or any member of the subdivision can enforce these deed restrictions. The Russell’s also claim to not be informed by the HOA that they were in violation; however, in court evidence was presented by the HOA that proved their claims inaccurate. In the above article, it also mentions that Mrs. Johnson had places marked in her book apparently indicating that her verdict was already made. The places marked in her book were laws relating to the case. There were also some interesting fabrications throughout the case. The Russell’s said that they didn’t know whether the sign was political or not and said they didn’t remember where they got it. Obviously, they did know it was a political sign and did remember from all their comments to the press. The fact that the sign was political remains irrelevant. They also lied about being in association with someone else who had a run in with the HOA about the same sign. He notarized their affidavit. To lie about these things made the Russell’s untrustworthy. Mrs. Johnson was required by law to rule in favor of the HOA because of the evidence presented. She is required by law to make the Russell’s pay for the opposing side’s attorney’s fees which was a sum of $7,000. The law also required that she charge them anywhere from $1-$200 a day. The Russell’s could have been charged around $68,000 but Mrs. Johnson choice to charge them the least amount she could ($1/day.) If you have any questions regarding the case, be sure to get both sides of the story. And before you form an opinion, become educated in the laws involved with the case.
How convenient that you chose to omit the part where Mrs. Russell questioned the other signs posted on properties, and yet these people were not fined! You say this is not political? Well, how do you explain the fact that no-one else was fined for their violations of posting there signs that we not for sale signs? The difference is that Mrs. Russell’s sign shows the words “Defend Your Liberties” and “Wake Up America”. Hit a nerve here KMH? You see, this is why GBTV is available to people that know and understand that “The truth lives here.”
*were not
May I ask as to what proof you have of other signs being in yards. If you are getting it from Mrs. Russell then you should find a different source since from what KMH said Mrs. Russell is not the most trustworthy. And may I point out that you evaded the fact that Judge Johnson gave her leniancy and gave her the minimum. It seem that you just want scream and shout about how unfair the world or government or whomever you decided on that day. You think that it really matter what was on the sign in thier eyes it was just another house that was breaking the rules of that area. The HOA did not decide to pick on her they were just indifferent to who the owner was. You also evaded the fact that the article was just one-sided and it was written with a butt load of opinion even though journalists are suppose to be impartial. Also a piece of advice if you what to get on you soapbox then you should try to get your information from more than one news show.
ITT,
Here’s a list of signs I see everyday in this neighborhood
1. A sign on a tree that says Froggy on the home of a former deed restriction committee member.
2. A sign that says bug crossing at a board member’s home.
3. A construction sign at a home by the front gate
4. 30 gas station signs including a texaco sign on a 20 foot pole.
The Russells haven’t lied about the selective enforcement of this HOA board.
Apparently another board member is trying to twist the story of what happened in court and still will not face the real issue of the selective enforcement that this HOA board practices when it comes to deed restrictions. The poster also refuses to mention the close friendship of the judge and one of the board members which should have been grounds for the judge to recuse herself from the case.
The deed restrictions are in place and could be enforced by anyone in the subdivision. However, if the board members were using their own money instead of the community’s money, it is doubtful that they would have filed the case at all. It’s easy to waste other people’s money.
It was a combination of the judge having her law book premarked, the dismissing of evidence and the relationship of the judge with a member of the HOA that gave the impression that her mind was made up about the case before all evidence had been heard.
The Russells never denied being in association with the person who was their notary. If this poster had listened in court they would have realized that the HOA lawyer was trying to say that the notary had filled out the paperwork for the Russells and was practicing law without a license. This was disproven quickly when the Russell’s lawyer stated that he had filled out the paperwork.
I find it intersting that in one sentence the poster says that the sign being political was irrelevant. If that is not the reason for the HOA going after the Russells when numerous other signs are allowed, then what was the reason? Why did the HOA lawyer constantly call it a political sign? Anyone who has done any research on the 9/12 group knows that there is no party affiliation with the group.
Now let’s look at the honesty of the attorney fees, since this is what the poster is claiming was the judgement. As of the September 20,2011 board meeting, the minutes state that the charges from the attorney for the Russell case totalled $1324.70. There was no expensive discovery in this case after this date. The judge did not ask to see billing records. She only went by what the attorney said. How did he spend almost $6000 more in one month when there were no court hearings during that time, no discovery, and no filings?
Since the poster also wants to look at exaggerations, the amount the judge said in court that she could have awarded was $38,000 and not the $68000 as claimed by the poster. Either of these amounts would have been excessive amounts (as the current judgement is) since there was no damage to the association, no drop in property values in the homes and no harm done to any person.
It seems very odd that the Russells were singled out for prosecution while others with signs were left alone. Selective enforcement and the appearance of questionable ethics by the JP judge are the issues here.
The good thing about this is that it has made at least one state representative say that there needs to be more restrictions placed on HOA’s so that abuses like this will stop.
One thing I’d like to say is that the judge’s personal life is of no importants to anyone. She did not excuse herself because maybe she did not know. You need to look at it through different points of view. You know maybe the lawyer was just giving to sign a name you don’t know. Oh and by the way since you are talking about the judge’s ethics did you know about her before this case? I mean if she really did have bad ethics I think the press would of heard about it before this incident. Please examine everything before jumping the gun like that and questioning her.
I can assure you, KMH, I have a stack of documents that I’ve yet to even begin to touch on and I haven’t even began to touch on the other individuals in the neighborhood who have been feverishly attacked for having the exact same “Wake Up America” sign on or near their properties. In my possession I have a vast amount of information not only regarding this case, but other major issues of great concern that have recently taken place in Parker County that were brought on by this hoa.
Beyond all of this, there has been a great deal exposed in a debate between HOA President, Mr. Stewart, and residents of the Remuda Ranch Estates in the comment section of a follow-up article I wrote (refer to link below to see the details).
Looking into the Board Members (Bullies) of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association
The sign said, “WAKE UP AMERICA – Defend Your Liberties” and defend their liberties is exactly what I intend to do.
Haha! Why do republicans’ words always come out sounding like sissies? Make threats, call names, c’mon! I thought you guys were right *THINKERS*. No? Maybe things are different in TX than they are in Iowa.
Sir you know that Judge Johnson was the judge for another case involving the hoa and I do believe her rule was different then this one. Also if you have so much proof then why don’t you use it you aren’t exactly helpless you know and why do you always have to blame the big bad group that is in actuality is enforcing the law. Just because Mrs. Russel and the other people that live there are the underdogs doesn’t mean that they are right.
Yes there was another case in which the judge ruled in favor of the HOA and fined an elderly man $25000 for not finishing his home. This was a problem that was ignored by the HOA for over 20 years and all of sudden it was taken to court. The judge sat on that case while her friend Kathy sat at the plaintiff’s table. She should have stepped down on that case too.
I was in the courtroom during the hearing. It is evident fro KMH’s comments he was not or there would not be so many errors in his comments.
You know maybe it is just because KMH has better intel then you do because you probably did not understand what was going on or you didn’t look into it. Also you seem to have already closed you mind to others on this issue before you even entered the courtroom. I am 100% sure that KMH is right on this one. Trust me.
KMH is the judge’s husband and an attorney, as she was. Right or wrong, who do you think he is going to stand up for? This while charade of being “The Peoples Court” is a travesty in and of itsself.
I wonder how many people miss the old judge? Many I would assume.
Right has a way of finding its way to the surface given enough time, as I am sure it will in this case. Remember that even juidges are subject to discipline from a judiciary review committee, and she just may have to answer to her peers for her actions. She should have recused herself on ALL cases involving Remuda, due to her close ties to Remuda HOA officials. She chose not to do so and she may regret it.
Sorry defender of others, I was in the courtroom for both hearings and understand fully what was going on. The Russells presented photos of the other signs in Remuda which included a full size replica of a 50s service station replete with about 30 advertising signs of larger than the 5 square feet allowed for a for sale sign per the bylaws. The service station also boasts a large Texaco sign mounted on a 20 ft. pole. The question is why would these signs in their abundance not be in violation of the deed restriction if the wake up america sign is.
The statement that claims to prove Clara Russell lied in court saying she had not been contacted by the board is inaccurate. One board member says he went to their house. He presented only his word as Clara did. He also said he had never met Clara Russell so his statement goes out the window. When Clara asked if he talked to her, he admitted he had not. The letter the board sent was not seen by the Russells because it was returned to the board and not delivered to the Russells because they were out of town when the mail man brought it.
To TTT, the judge did not give the Russells the minimum. Here is what the judge said – She said she could penalize them $200 for the 196 days since the case was filed by the HOA which would amount to $39,200. She felt that was too high so she adjusted the figure to $100 a day which would have been $19,600. She was not comfortable with that figure so asked the HOA’s attorney what his fees amounted to. He replied about $7,000 and the HOA president confirmed that. The judge did not ask to see statements the HOA had received from the attorney or proof of this amount. It has been since learned from the minutes published by the HOA that the amount was under $2,000. The judge chose to use the $7,000 figure as a basis for the penalty and included court costs.
Clara did not lie about being in association with someone else involved in a suit with the HOA. The HOA attorney asked if the person who had notarized their paperwork had written the paperwork for them. The Russells attorney told the judge he had done the paperwork and is working pro bono. Clara Russell did not deny knowing the person who acted as notary – she just said she did not know the details of the suit between him and the HOA even though the HOA lawyer pressed her to say something different.
KMH is wrong in saying the judge chose to penalize the Russells a dollar a day. That would have been only $196 and had the judge used that figure all this commotion would not have occurred. Don’t know where KMH comes up with the $68,000 figure. That amount was not mentioned in the courtroom.
[...] Texas Family Sued by HOA for Posting a Wake Up America SignOther Chapters in this ongoing story:Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #5 7-22-2011)Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued (Update [...]