After 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:

1. Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #5 7-22-2011)
2. Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued (Update #1)
3. The Conflicts of Interest Keep Getting More Interesting when in Parker County, Texas
4. Clara Russell Makes it onto Glenn Beck and Doug Giles to Tell Her Story
5. Taking a Better Look into Conflicts of Interest in Parker County, Texas Regarding Russell Case
6. Looking into the Board Members (Bullies) of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association
7. Couple Sued for “WAKE UP AMERICA” sign to appear on GBTV
8. Update: Remuda Estates HOA vs Russells Case
9. Herring Resigns from HOA Board Over Remuda HOA vs Russells Lawsuit