Move an easy Pawn over to guard the Bishop. Judge Matt Johnson, the “Belly of the Beast” has good ole boy David Hodges now as his “Mini Me.”
God help us. Ready, willing, and put in a position where he is very able to carry out the wishes of his “Brotherhood” that has saved his ass again from financial woes and David Hodges is reborn into a world of people who don’t remember Patti, or the how many other women and people he has hurt in his wake without remorse.
Women vote too, you idiots.
Anyway, here is David Hodges with some other old f*rt, let’s do a little looking.
Want to play along?
Let’s walk together.
In 2002 Coke Mills and John Cullar got Hodges knocked off the ballot because Hodges is basically a “dick” and overplayed a really dumb move.
SO, everyone forgot Hodges, he was no longer “the man.” He was always one of “them,” plus sneaky and really not many people liked the guy, anyway, “they” knew he’d be a happy puppy to come back, and start right in actually, fking people.
Here is the Supreme Court finding if you don’t believe me. More Harry under it.
STATE v. HODGES
Supreme Court of Texas.
The STATE of Texas, McLennan County Democratic Party, and John Cullar, in his official capacity as County Chair of the McLennan County Democratic Party, Appellants, v. David L. HODGES, Appellee.
Decided: August 21, 2002
R. John Cullar, R. Coke Mills, Mills Cullar & McLeod, LLP, Waco, Joseph David Hughes, Assistant Solicitor General, Julie Caruthers, Office of the Solicitor General, John Cornyn, Attorney General, Howard G. Baldwin, First Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Boyd, Michael Winget-Hernandez, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, for Appellants. Roy L. Barrett, Naman Howell Smith & Lee, Waco, Keith C. Cameron, Naman Howell Smith & Lee, Austin, for Appellee.This direct appeal involves the construction and constitutionality of section 162.015 of the Texas Election Code, which prohibits a person from appearing on the general election ballot as a candidate for a political party “other than the party holding the primary in which the person voted or was a candidate.” Tex. Elec.Code § 162.015(a)(2). There are two issues in this appeal: (1) whether section 162.015 can reasonably be construed to permit Judge David Hodges to appear as a Democratic Party candidate in the November 2002 election even though he voted in the Republican Party primary, and if not, (2) whether the statute as applied to Judge Hodges violates either the Texas or United States Constitutions. The trial court rendered judgment that section 162.015 is unconstitutional as applied to Judge Hodges “under the specific and unique facts of this case.” We conclude that section 162.015 cannot reasonably be construed to permit Judge Hodges to be a Democratic Party general election candidate when he voted in the Republican Party primary and that the statute is not unconstitutional as applied to him. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that Judge Hodges is ineligible for a place on the November 2002 general election ballot as a Democratic Party candidate.
David L. Hodges is the incumbent judge of McLennan County Court at Law No. 1. He has served in that capacity for about twenty years. In March 2002, Judge Hodges again ran for his office in the Democratic Party primary. He was unopposed and, therefore, received the Democratic Party’s nomination for Judge of McLennan County Court at Law No. 1.
However, rather than casting a vote in the March 2002 Democratic Party primary, Judge Hodges decided to vote for his friend, Jim Meyer, who was running in a contested race for district judge in the Republican Party primary. After discovering that Judge Hodges voted in the Republican Party primary, the McLennan County Democratic Party Chair, John Cullar, informed Judge Hodges that section 162.015 left him no discretion but to remove Judge Hodges from the November 2002 general election ballot as the Democratic Party’s nominee. It is undisputed that Judge Hodges would be eligible to run as the Democratic Party candidate for county court at law judge in the general election but for section 162.015. It is also undisputed that absent section 162.015 Judge Hodges would be guaranteed reelection because he has no opposition in the general election.
Before Cullar issued a declaration of ineligibility, Judge Hodges filed a declaratory judgment action, asking the trial court to declare that section 162.015 does not render him ineligible to be a Democratic Party candidate and to enjoin Cullar from declaring him ineligible. The trial court disagreed with Judge Hodges’s statutory construction argument and denied his request for a temporary injunction.
After the trial court’s ruling on Judge Hodges’s statutory construction argument, Cullar issued a Notice of Administrative Declaration of Ineligibility, declaring Judge Hodges ineligible for a place on the 2002 general election ballot. Thereafter, Judge Hodges amended his petition, claiming that section 162.015 is unconstitutional as written and as applied to him. Although Judge Hodges’s amended petition did not cite the provisions of the Texas and United States Constitutions that section 162.015 allegedly violates, his trial court brief stated that the statute impermissibly burdens his right to vote and violates his substantive due process rights. The State of Texas intervened, arguing for the statute’s constitutionality.
After a non-jury trial, the trial court held section 162.015 unconstitutional as applied to Judge Hodges “under the specific and unique facts of this case.” The trial court rendered judgment, permanently enjoining the McLennan County Democratic Party from declaring Judge Hodges ineligible for a place on the November 2002 general election ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for Judge of McLennan County Court at Law No. 1 based on his participation in the Republican Party primary. The State of Texas, Cullar, and the McLennan County Democratic Party (“Appellants”) filed direct appeals to this Court. By cross-point, Judge Hodges reasserted his statutory construction argument as an alternative basis for upholding the trial court’s judgment, but he did not argue that section 162.015 is facially unconstitutional. We noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
Here’s your proof that he got himself appointed again with his buddies.
Former county court-at-law judge named to new associate …
Jump over to 2019, there is a case before Matt Johnson. He has to recuse himself because he was the neighbor of the defendant, AND Matt Johnson, did not like the Democrats of the day, John Cullar, Pat Beard, Coke Mills, B. Rappaport, Kulgen, others because they wouldn’t support or give him money as a Republican. Let’s pause to just moan, “duhhh,” here but this got Johnson real butt hurt.
Remember Matt Johnson’s daddy was Judge Durwood Johnson before him, he was the one owned by the Dunnams if you remember. Okay. He along with George Allen, Judge were ALL DEMOCRATS.
I know, it’shard to understand but think of it as “Bloodline” meets “Dallas” meets “Dynasty” with “Blood Ties” that goes on for generations of asshol##. It’s like ancestry.com of HELLTOWN.
SO, now it’s 2019 and the son of an enemy of “them” is up before Matt Johnson, he recuses, and David Hodges sits on the bench. Doesn’t see a problem with taking the case.
Judge David Hodges, with a “Special Prosecutor” there, and the accused, and his attorney, does NOT LET THEM SEE THE PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION FROM THE PROBATION OFFICE.
While sitting there trying to figure out wtf, the two attorneys, both from out of town are informed, “that’s the way we do it here” and the party goes on with them sitting there shocked in amazement.
Hodges says, “do you accept the plea?”
THEN, Hodges slams the defendant with MORE THAN THE RECOMMENDED PLEA BARGAIN. More? Much more.
The entire matter was “signed off” by guess who?
The recused Judge, Matt Johnson.
They won’t stop until we make them.
TEXAS TRANSPARENCY ACT.
Demand better from these bser## already.