Verdict is in on the ‘Wake Up America’ sign started by Talk Host Glenn Beck
ByAfter a long two and a half weeks of waiting, the verdict is finally in on the Russell’s appeal for inability to pay the bond issued by Judge Lynn Marie Johnson in Pct. 4 Parker County, Texas JP Court. As you might recall, the evidence was submitted on December 1, 2011 and the Russells finally received their verdict on Tuesday, December 20, 2011. This update has been delayed as I researched the claims made by the judge in the judgement itself.
After reviewing this verdict and speaking with the Russell’s attorney, Joshua Cardin, I’ve come to understand the bizarre nature of this verdict. From the information I was provided, the verdict should have just contained the last sentence found in Judge Johnson’s latest verdict which stated,
“It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants Affidavit of Inability to pay costs is denied.”
Instead, the verdict contained a long justification for the Judge’s decision which displays a trend of the judge either not listening during the presentation of evidence during the initial trial, or it shows the judge’s associations with Remuda Ranch Association board members and adds further merit to where the judge should have recused herself from this case. Regardless of what the reason might be, there are a number of gross inaccuracies found in Johnson’s writings. While reading through these breakdowns, remember the issue the hearing was based upon was the Russells “Inability to Pay” the bond exceeding $14,000 as required by Judge Johnson’s decisions.
I will begin by breaking down the verdict and will provide the complete verdict at the end.
- At issue is Defendant’s Affidavit of Inability to post bond to appeal this Court’s judgment and to pay the court costs associated with this appeal including the County Clerk’s fee of $212.00 and this Court’s fee of $10.00.
* The above statement is inaccurate. The Russells never said they were unable to pay the court costs, County Clerk’s fee, or the Court’s fee.
- …Defendants vacationed in February and in the fall…
* The first vacation was to the wedding of the Russell’s daughter where the in-laws picked up the tab and the alleged fall vacation was a mandatory continuing education class that Johnnie Russell attended to alone and was required by his employer.
- …Defendant Clara Russell is retired, works part time babysitting, and is not prevented from working full time…
* Clara Russell has told me that she has been looking for work.
- …Defendants are not on governmental assistance…
* To most this is a good thing, however it appears to be a contributing factor in the Judge’s decision.
- …Defendants hired an attorney to represent them in this matter in April 2011…
* The Russells paid an attorney $150.00 to submit a General Denial on their behalf.
- …Defendants have $700.00 in their bank account…
* According to the Russell’s attorney, this statement is not true. An effort was made to give Justice of the Peace Johnson a copy of bank records to which the Judge declined. The discrepancy may have something to do with the long delay in the Judge making her ruling.
- …Defendants have discretionary income in excess of their monthly expenses, many of which are not for necessities…
* After speaking with the Russells and their attorney, it is safe to say this is NOT true in any stretch of the imagination.
- …Defendants made no effort to sell personal property…
* I respond to this with a quote taken from their neighbor, Jack Cavenah, “Should anyone have the right to expect another to sell personal property, cars, guns, fishing equipment, boat, jewelry, etc. to pay an excessive, punitive fine? Mrs. Johnson is a Judge, not GOD.”
- …obtain a loan or locate two good and sufficient sureties…
* Johnnie and Clara Russell are not in the position to take on any more debts.
- …and Defendants only contacted 3 companies to obtain a corporate surety bond…
* FACT: The Russells contacted 5 bond companies, which the Russells attempted to submit during the Inability to Pay hearing and she did NOT want a copy, and were told they either don’t deal in civil case bonds or they would have to have 100% collateral because of the tendency for civil cases to last a long time and tie up their resources for an extended period of time. Their current attorney, who is working pro bono, has also made numerous failed attempts to find resources for their bond.
- …Defendant Clara Russell testified that she did not know “Jack Cavenah” yet Mr. Cavenah their Affidavit in question…
* There was never any testimony provided where Mrs. Russell stated she did not know Jack. This is one of the disadvantages to Texas JP courts not be a “Court of Record”, although attempts were made to request recording the appeal hearing to which Judge Johnson was quite firm on their not being any recording of the hearing.
- …she testified that the sign was “not political”; and finally she testified that the sign referred to a nonprofit charitable organization.
* The 912 Project, as explained on the national website, is not political, although individuals as in any organization may choose to be politically active.
- …Mrs. Russell testified that she did not know about her violation of the deed restrictions until she was served by the Constable with citation in April 2011; yet the evidence produced at trial showed that Defendants were told on separate occasions of the deed restriction violation on January 1, 2011 and that Mrs. Russell told the HOA to hire attorneys, thereby indicating her intent to violate the deed restrictions.
* According to information I was provided, by courtroom witnesses, during this discovery process, both witnesses for the Remuda Ranch Estates HOA testified that they had not laid eyes on Clara before the hearing nor had they talked to her on the phone. So how did they notify her she was in violation of the deed restrictions? Simple. They didn’t. She became aware of it when she was served a summons to appear.
- …The Court further finds, as a matter of law, that Defendants own real and personal property, have disposable income, are gainfully employed, and have the ability or get credit to pay some of all costs of appeal or provide security therefore in connection with the appeal of this matter.
* Have disposable income? How does one truly dictate what is disposable and what is not?
* Gainfully employed? Johnnie Russell is employed while Clara babysits part-time for her daughter while still looking for a job.
* From the private information I was provided by the Russells and details given to me by their attorney they are NOT in a position to get credit to pay all costs of the appeal or provide security for the same.
Here is the Judge Lynn Marie Johnson’s verdict:
Page 1 of Judge Johnson's decision on Russell 'Inability to Pay' hearing. (Click for Larger Image)
Page 2 of Judge Lynn Marie Johnson's verdict. (Click to view Larger Image)
As a final note, the Russell’s attorney Joshua Cardin has filed a new appeal on their case. I was impressed with his devotion to the case and his perseverance to find a positive solution. The couple continues to look for options that will help them meet the bond so they can appeal this decision in District Court with the aide of Mr. Cardin. I have also been made aware of one additional important filing that I am unable to disclose at this time, but hope to share with you in the near future.
If you are able to help the Russells with their defense fund, please donate at:
Clara Russell Defense Fund
PO Box 150471
Ft. Worth Texas 76108
Follow the history of the developments on this case:
- 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
- Looking into the Board Members (Bullies) of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association
- Couple Sued for “WAKE UP AMERICA” sign to appear on GBTV
- Update: Remuda Estates HOA vs Russells Case
- Herring Resigns from HOA Board Over Remuda HOA vs Russells Lawsuit
Other stories of interest:
- Update: Remuda Estates HOA vs Russells Case
- Couple Sued for “WAKE UP AMERICA” sign to appear on GBTV
- Taking a Better Look into Conflicts of Interest in Parker County, Texas Regarding Russell Case
- Clara Russell Makes it onto Glenn Beck and Doug Giles to Tell Her Story (Updated)
- 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.
One of the witnesses in from the HOA board also said that a person who had a sign on his tree was not on the deed restriction committe and never had been. Funny how the minutes show him as being appointed to the deed restriction committee and he never got a letter saying he was in violation and he never was taken to court for his sign on his tree.
And the judge says the Russells are not credible? Sounds like she had her mind made up before the hearing was even held. I wonder if her good friend on the HOA board provided the judge with information outside of the courtroom.
I just watched a video of the Remuda HOA meeting in November 2011 on Youtube. Something very strange happened about 22.32 into the video which causes me no small concern. Shelby Dougherty, HOA secretary, hauls out a letter, email, whatever, saying she just got a paper that was just filed in JP #4, and she hadn’t read it. My concern is this: how did she get this filing before Clara made it to the post office to mail it?? That type of communication is called ex parte’ and is illegal. Who in the Judge’s office is guilty of leaking information to the HOA ahead of anyone else, and isn’t that showing bias in favor of the HOA? The document will more than likely be subpeoned and then the fat will really be in the fire. I hope some enterprising youny investigating reporter takes the time to ‘make his bones’ with this story. It stinks more every day.
Looks like some heads are going to roll over this leak! I believe this just opens up a whole new can of worms, and the judge’s office just made a huge mistake! Speaking of worms; I’d like to see them worm themselves out of this one! I continue to pray for Clara and Johnnie with their appeal. God Bless them both, and God Bless the attorney working pro bono on their behalf.
I hate to disagree with such a famous person as Glen Beck, but from all indications, no heads are going to get knocked on, much caused to roll,over the “leak” in the JP’s office. Nay, it is getting absolutely NO attention at all.
On a brighter note, Clara and Johnnie Russell got a judge with some common sense and compassion In Court of Law #2, and their appeal was allowed without having to pay a $14,000 CASH BOND. Thank God for judges who can add, and who understand that just because you have worked hard and own a few things, you are not automatically rich.
From what I hear, the HOA is broke and cannot afford to hire attornies to defend the appeal. They had not one, but two attorneys at the hearing in Court of Law #2 and still lost. Do you think it just might be they lost because they were WRONG? I think the HOA never even considered that possibility. I guess they could take up a collection among the residents to fund their “evil empire” games, but I doubt they would get many contributions. God bless the Russells and their attorney Joshua Carden.
“I’ll sue you.”
“I’ll sure you back.”
“I’ll sure you more.”
“I’ll sue you until you can’t sue me anymore because I have more money.”
That last one sounds like a playbook right out of scientology (I refuse to capitalize it). Petty and vindictive like a little spoiled rich brat with more money than sense. Maybe you folks should test yourselves for thetan infestation. A good E-meter might do the trick.
You folks sound like a bunch of school yard bullies seeing who can stomp their feet the loudest. A bunch of grown adults acting like children. Personally, I just as soon Tarrant County annex the whole lot of you. None of you deserve the privilege of calling yourself residents of the county I’ve grown up in and loved all my life.
Three things stand out in my mind. Feeble as it is:
1. The neighborhood was fairly peaceful… until 1995.
2. “She is such a whore.”
3. Realtors are refusing to list properties in Remuda Estates. Ya think?
Frankly, I hope you folks get your differences worked out. Because a) you’re wasting news print, b) you’re wasting the Court dockets, and c) Parker County could use a few less idiots.
For the record, I don’t live anywhere near Remuda Estates nor do I know anyone personally who does.
Native, for your edification. There were no lawsuits until the HOA got over $54,000 in gas lease funds in 2007.
The HOA brought the first lawsuit in 2008 and lost.
The next 3 lawsuits were brought against the HOA. 2 suits were lost by the HOA. 1 suit was dropped by the plaintiff.
In 2011, the HOA brought lawsuits against 5 members. 2 were dismissed , 1 is still pending, They finally won one by default, They won because the defendant did not appear in court. The one against the Russells was won by the Russells so the HOA lost again.
Let’s see. 9 lawsuits – 6 brought by the HOA and they lost 4, won 1, 1 pending. In the process they have spent over $30,000 of the lease money that belongs to all the residents of Remuda and not just the board and they have nothing to show for the expenditure. Since they are broke, it is expected the lawsuits will stop.
Mr Cavenah:
Fact:
Cavenah – Remuda (Gun Range case) – dismissed when state law was adopted by County
Cavenah/Leman – Remuda – Dismissed with prejudice after mediation
Robertson – won by HOA
Ray – dropped by HOA, restriction was enforced by neighboring HOA
King – won by HOA
Lippard – settled out of court
Cavenah – withdrawn with prejudice after losing his request for Summery Judgment
Russell – HOA won in JP4, currently on appeal
There was no “Leak” from the JP court as you suggest. The paperwork that was shared in the meeting was an email from the Association’s Lawyer that was sent to both parties. Sorry to kill your fun but it was all above board and legal.
Yes the Judge allowed the Russells to move to appeal. That’s not a win for them it just allows them to move up in the system without a bond. In fact it could be seen as a drain on the citizens of the country as the county is now responsible for the court cost. As of now the judgment stands. BTW: There was only one Attorney at the hearing; the other young lady was a student observing the case.
Of course you understand that if people like you and the Russells just followed the Tea Parties fifth principle stuff like this wouldn’t happen.
“
From the 9 Principles
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government? equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson”
As usual Mr. Stewart, you mix fact and fiction until you see what you want to see.
First case you refer to was dismissed (without prejudice) long before the 10 acre ordinance was enacted, because it was not winable by HOA.
The next to last case: I am looking at my request for dismissal and the Judge’s ruling as I write this–Both state dismissed without prejudice , which means I can refile the same case any time I wish, in any court I choose. No reason to pursue at this time, HOA can’t pay damages when they lose. If you would like a copy , it is $1.00 per page, same as your attorney charged me,
Lippard case has NOT been dismissed according to the information posted on Parker County Judicial Records website. Look for yourself.
Your contention that the Country (I think you meant County) Is responsible for the court costsis incorrect. Clara has to pay the court costs for JP Court Case. The loser of the next round (Remuda) will have to pay the Court costs in County Court of Law #2 or District Court, which ever Court Josh files it in. Remuda can’t possibly win because the sign was four feet outside of her property line, which made the suit filed by Remuda improper. If you have the money and wish to waste it, by all means go ahead and pursue this folly.
Your actions have put Remuda in a very precarious position. I’m glad I’m no longer a member, and have no responsibility for Remuda’s debts.
Mr. Stewart, you forgot the case that was lost by the HOA for breaking the mediation agreement. You also forgot the case the HOA filed against the Tetro family that you dropped by the HOA.
As to the Ray case, it was not enforced by another HOA but the owner of the fence removed the sign after an Remuda HOA board member threatened to have his HOA sue him over the sign.
The Robertson case was won because an 80 something year old man did not understand the court papers and had no idea he was supposed to show up for court. The HOA won by default.
Cavenah case with the gun range was dropped because after the HOA lost their first hearing they went to Parker County Commissioner’s court for a meeting that was held without proper notification of the residents of the county. To get back at one person the board was mad at, the entire county is now limited on their use of firearms on their own property.
The ruling in district court was a win for the Russells. They can now take their case to district court where a fair hearing can be held. All this for a sign that was not even on their property.
How surprising that the HOA, without notifying the Russells, decided to survey the Russells property. What gives an HOA the right to do this? Do you think you can just do whatever you want on people’s private property?
A very interesting point is that the Russells had several Remuda residents at court supporting them. The only people who showed up to support the board in court were board members. So how much support does the board really have?
Finally, the nine principles are from the 912 group and not the Tea Party. The groups are separate.
@clear the record: I don’t need edification. My morals and intellect are just fine. But thanks anyway.
Speaking of morals:
“During a 10 minute recess after testimony Thursday at the county courthouse, a group of HOA board members and a group of Russell supporters, most of them neighbors, gathered on opposite sides of the gallery, talking among themselves.”
“Looking at an association member speaking with an attorney representing the group, Cavenah said, “Oh, she’s such a whore,” in earshot of those around him.”
That was a misquote and there are witnesses to prove it. The statement was, “she came to court dressed like a whore” – not that she was one. A correction has been sent to the reporter.