Patrick Henry | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Patrick Henry 
Member since Sep 23, 2010


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “Divorce case touches Supreme Court race

Plain Jim, you are thinking of Rhonda Wood, who ran for the Arkansas Court of Appeals this year and lost. Rhonda Wood was endorsed by the Republican Party and Mike Huckabee and was appointed to her circuit court position by Huckabee. Judge Baker ran for the Arkansas Court of Appeals on a Democratic ticket in 2000.

Posted by Patrick Henry on 10/25/2010 at 9:37 PM

Re: “Divorce case touches Supreme Court race

How can you possibly criticize Judge Baker for this? How could you rationally believe that this is a campaign trick? Shane Hamilton filed a verified complaint stating that his wife, Lauren Hamilton, confessed to him that she was having an affair with Tim Fox. By signing a verified complaint, Shane Hamilton is swearing to the complaint’s truth. You cannot rationally believe that Shane Hamilton is committing perjury for the purpose of helping Judge Baker get elected. That is completely absurd. As for Kim Kelley representing Shane Hamilton, you cannot possibly believe that Judge Baker was somehow involved in Shane Hamilton’s decision to hire Kim Kelley to represent him in a divorce. That too is completely absurd. And certainly, you cannot possibly suggest that Judge Baker was responsible for Tim Fox’s decision to have an affair with Lauren Hamilton, a former clerk of his. It is the heights of slander to suggest that Judge Baker is somehow orchestrating the decisions of Kim Kelley and her client, Shane Hamilton.

As for another matter, Tim Fox is not credible. I have worked as a law clerk. The judges on the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals work hard. Either Tim Fox does not understand how an appellate court works or he is purposely misstating the facts for political gain, to wrongfully misrepresent Judge Baker’s work ethic. I worked there. The judges take work home. They work all the time. This is not an easy job, and it is disingenuous for Tim Fox to suggest otherwise.

And suggesting Judge Baker was Huckabee’s lawyer? She has never worked for him. For God’s sake, she ran as a Democrat! And Family Council? Maybe Family Council doesn’t like Tim Fox, but it doesn’t mean that Judge Baker would be any more willing to support them. How can you, with absolutely no evidence, possibly attribute to Judge Baker Family Council’s politics?

I have previously posted my concerns over Tim Fox’s decisions, and I do not want to repeat them here. But I do not believe that Tim Fox is the person the people of the State of Arkansas need on the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Posted by Patrick Henry on 10/25/2010 at 7:54 PM

Re: “Held in contempt

Jeez Max, maybe you should have appealed. Then we would know whether what you claim she did was improper. Absent that, we only have your version. As a lawyer, I know there's always another side. I guess your claim that a "legal offense" occurred is, and will always be, just an unproven allegation. In any event, my recollection is that there are circumstances in which, by agreement of the parties, the proceedings may be closed. Gosh, I wish you had felt more strongly about pursuing it on appeal rather than just complaining about it when there's nobody available to rebut it. Then we would know if you were actually harmed. Did you ever talk to her about it? I bet not, it might ruin your grudge. And talk about holding one. Thirteen years? Not much into forgive and forget, or at least figuring out if you were in fact harmed. And the Times covering a divorce? Intervening in somebody else's divorce? Really? Is that news? Is that even the right thing to do? I don't hear that happening much in the tens of thousands of divorces. Why did you think you had standing to mess around with somebody else's divorce? Don't they have enough problems already? This sounds more like fodder for People magazine. What possibly was your motivation? Certainly not to enlighten your readership. And a divorce "touch[ing]" on corporate financial issues? I rather doubt that a couple's splitting of marital property has much do do with corporate financial issues. And I question your assumption that your "public interest" motivated anybody to settle a case. That's not how people think, at least in a divorce. And I can guess what was in the file. A form complaint for divorce, alleging general indignities, and a form divorce decree, stating that the parties had entered into a property settlement agreement that is not part of the record. In other words, nothing, as you are apparently aware by your reference to "boilerplate." And fussing about Judge Baker because some of her supporters don't like Fox? Not liking a candidate is usually the reason a person supports the other candidate, but it doesn't mean that the other candidate would be any more willing to support the person's postion. While you may be troubled by "the work of Baker's supporters to criticize Fox for his landmark ruling that a church-driven state effort to prevent gay people from being foster parents was unconstitutional," how is Judge Baker responsible for that? For all you know she may disagree with them as well. You state that "the unavoidable inference is that Baker's backers believe she is unfriendly to this modest advancement in human rights. Maybe that's not so." You're damn right maybe that's not so. But what the hell, let's just tar her with that brush just because you don't like her supporters. A bit unfair, don't you think? I bet you never asked her about her position on that either. It's easier just to infer the worst. And Fox? You mischaracterize his "landmark" ruling. He just said that the regulation violated separation of powers. In other words, only the legislature, and not the executive branch, has the power to restrict who may be a foster parent. He didn't address either the right to privacy or equal protection, so we really don't know what he thinks about it.

Posted by Patrick Henry on 10/15/2010 at 10:26 PM

Re: “Judge backs partisan endorsements

The judicial canons prohibit a judicial candidate from seeking endorsements or accepting endorsements for use in a campaign. Tim Fox mailed out campaign literature showing himself as the Republican Party's endorsed candidate! In Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield, Fox removed Ralph Nader from the presidential ballot, and the Arkansas Supreme Court characterized Fox’s reasoning as leading to an “absurd” and “unconstitutional” result that would infringe “upon one of the fundamental civil liberties of our democracy, that of the secret ballot”! In Jones v. Flowers, the United States Supreme Court! reversed a Fox decision that allowed the Commissioner of State Lands to take a landowner’s property without adequate notice because the efforts to notify the landowner did not satisfy due process! And in Department of Human Services v. Howard, Judge Fox relied on the separation-of-powers doctrine to overturn DHS regulations precluding a household that included a homosexual member from acting as a foster parent, concluding that the executive branch of government had usurped the legislative branch’s powers. The problem with the decision is that it did not consider whether it violated (1) the right to equal protection and (2) the right to privacy or intimate association. In effect, the ruling was that while the executive branch could not pass such a limitation, the legislature could do it, thus leaving the door open for a legislative or initiated act to be passed that reached the same result as the regulation. Thus, the decision dramatically prolonged the issue, as it left open the possibility that someone might write up such an act, get it on the ballot, and get it passed, after which there would be another prolonged court battle. That’s exactly what happened, it’s still not over, and the issue still remains in doubt! Where is the hue and cry?

Posted by Patrick Henry on 09/23/2010 at 9:22 AM

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation