In a major victory for the City of Kyle and its Police Chief Jeff Barnett, the three-year legal battle waged by Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston against the city and Barnett has appeared to come to an end with yesterday’s ruling by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing Hurlston’s appeal.
The decision from justices Fortunato Benavides, Gregg Costa and Edward Prado concluded there was no evidence to support Hurlston’s claims that Barnett violated Hurlston’s civil rights and, thus, "a municipality (i.e., Kyle) cannot be held liable under section 1983 if no constitutional violation has been committed by a municipal actor (i.e., Chief Barnett)."
Hurlston claims Barnett used his capacity as Kyle’s police chief and as the former police chief in Princeton, Texas, to have Princeton Police Lt. Robert Mitchnik, another defendant in Hurlston’s suit, arrest Hurlston on New Year’s Day 2012 on charges that Hurlston physically assaulted his wife, Suzanne, who had previously had an affair with Barnett and gave birth to his son, a child Hurlston said he originally thought was his. Suzanne has repeatedly claimed Princeton police simply responded to her 9-1-1 calls for help.
The appellate court saw it Suzanne’s way.
"Hurlston contends that Barnett conspired with Mitchnik and others to have him arrested for the assault/choking incident on January 1, 2012, in Princeton," the three judges said in their decision. "However, neither Barnett nor Mitchnik were present at that arrest. Indeed, Barnett was the Chief of the Kyle Police Department when the Princeton Police Officers arrested Hurlston after Ms. Hurlston called 9-1-1, stating that Hurlston had choked her."
"Oh it's not over till it's over that's what great about the legal system," Hurlston told me via e-mail in reaction to the appellate court’s decision. "There can be justice just like in the OJ Simpson case."
The 5th Circuit’s opinion, however, would seem to block Hurlston’s current contentions that the city and Barnett conspired with authorities in Princeton to deny Hurlston his civil rights.
"Hurlston’s claim of conspiracy fails because there is no evidence that Barnett conspired with Mitchnik," the court said."Mitchnik cannot conspire with himself." Additionally, the judges said. "no fact-finder could reasonably infer from this record that Barnett and Mitchnik conspired to violate Hurlston’s constitutional rights."
"The ruling by the appellate court confirms the City’s position that the case was malicious, frivolous and unsupported," Kyle Mayor Todd Webster said in a prepared statement. "It is our hope that with this ruling, we can move past this issue and continue with all the good work we’re doing in the City of Kyle."
Hurlston’s attorney James B. Doyle said he was not surprised by the court’s decision.
"The hurdles were pretty high for a citizen claiming misconduct on the part of a police official," Doyle said by phone from his offices in Lake Charles, La,. "As the court said directly in its opinion, you want to give them an operating space in which to work and you would have to present what we consider a jury trial-able issue to get to that point. The court certainly was in its bounds in writing that opinion and it was not completely unexpected."
Doyle said his only legal avenue left to pursue would be to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that he has already advised Hurlston such an appeal would be fruitless. He said the next steps were really up to Kyle to determine how the city wants to react to what Doyle referred to as Barnett’s character issues.
"The decision was really limited to the question of not whether we had proved the various things that Chief Barnett had engaged in — the factual stuff — but whether that factual stuff would rise to a level that would overcome his status as a police officer."
Doyle singled out that section of the court’s decision that said ‘Although Barnett advised Ms. Hurlston about covering up evidence of their affair, this was a private act, and the evidence does not show that it was connected to his authority as the Kyle Police Chief."
"The City of Kyle now employs as its police chief a man who was proven to have conspired with a person we contend was fraudulently trying to steal our client’s money and he told that person not to turn herself in," Doyle said. "He told her how to destroy evidence in a case from a law enforcement perspective. I wonder how the City of Kyle feels about that. I wonder if they think that requires any further action."
I have also sought reaction from Chief Barnett and his attorneys will include those reactions if and when the parties reply to my requests.
The big question now — and a question left unanswered by the Mayor Webster’s prepared statement issued through the city’s official spokesperson — is when hearings will resume in the appeal of the disciplinary actions taken against former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza, who was suspended indefinitely for violating a police department directive that prohibited Kyle police officers from having any contact with Hurlston and later dismissed from the force for insubordination, based on allegations he was untruthful when questioned by superiors concerning his involvement in events surrounding Hurlston’s lawsuit. Those hearings were continued until after the 5th Circuit rendered its decision.
In his suit, Hurlston further claimed Barnett conspired to have Hurlston arrested for violating an emergency protective order a few weeks after Hurlston's New Year's arrest.
In summary, the appellate court ruled "by the time of Hurlston’s arrests, Barnett had moved from Princeton to Kyle, and was not present at either arrest. Although it is undisputed that Barnett had an affair with Hurlston’s wife and such evidence provides a motive to harm Hurlston, Hurlston relies on speculation and innuendo but no competent summary judgment evidence that creates a material fact issue suggesting that Barnett used his job to harass Hurlston."
"Hurlston contends that Barnett used the position as Police Chief to harass him and have him arrested," the 5th Circuit Court’s decision states. "However, the evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Barnett’s using his state authority to have Hurlston harassed and arrested."
The decision also says: "Hurlston’s affidavit states that during the ‘last week of May 2012, I called Barnett at work and told his secretary that I am coming to the next Kyle city council meeting on June 5, 2012 to expose him (Barnett) to the council.’ Hurlston contends that after he called Barnett, ‘Barnett scrambled to have a warrant issued’ for his arrest before the council meeting to be held on June 5. To support this contention, Hurlston states that ‘no action was taken on Ms. Hurlston’s complaint until’ he made the phone call to Barnett. Hurlston is mistaken. After Ms. Hurlston made her complaint that Hurlston had violated the court protective order, and prior to Hurlston’s call to Barnett, law enforcement officials did take action."
The court also rejected Hurlston’s claim that Barnett caused the DPS to produce a "Threat to a Peace Officer Investigation" report on the doctor.
"My client got his day in court with respect to some of this and there are still questions to be answered," Hurlston’s attorney told me today. "Not in any legal sense, necessarily, although we’re going to make that decision down the road. People have to stand up and say what they believe and what they’re for and what they’re against."
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Glen Hurlston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glen Hurlston. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Hurlston wrongfully accuses Espinoza's lawyer of lying to hearing examiner
Dr. Glen Hurlston, the Louisiana anesthesiologist implicated in the legal case of former Kyle Police officer Jesse Espinoza, is claiming Espinoza’s attorney lied when he told a federal examiner hearing Espinoza’s appeal that a gag order prevented Espinoza from getting a fair hearing.
Attorney Grant Goodwin sought and won a continuance in Espinoza’s hearing earlier this month by convincing hearing examiner Dr. Paula Ann Hughes that a gag order issued in connection with a lawsuit Hurlston has filed against the City of Kyle, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett and others prevented Goodwin from eliciting the testimony he needed from Barnett.
"Let me enlighten you their (sic) is no gag order because it was issued by a lower court which dismissed the case so it no longer is in effect," Hurlston, using his favorite alias "Law Abiding Citizen," said Saturday in an e-mail. "The case is in a higher court so Barnett Attorney (sic) are hiding behind a gag order they know isn't inforceable (sic) or even applicable anymore."
However, an independent verification I conducted today with legal officials involved in the suit argues that Hurlston’s claims are simply not true. It is true the gag order was issued in a lower court case which was decided then appealed to a higher court. However, the legal sources in Fort Worth and Dallas I talked to today said the gag order accompanied that appeal and, thus, is still in effect.
It’s also strange that Hurlston would, in effect, call the attorney of someone representing the person alleged to be his co-conspirator in a plot to discredit Barnett a liar. However, in all fairness, I must add that Hurlston added language in his e-mail to suggest he was actually calling me a liar for writing a story suggesting Hurlston was defying the gag order by threatening to sue the City of Kyle until "I will bankrupt them into submission." The last sentence of Hurlston’s e-mail to me, in response to that story, said "So everything you said is just simply a lie an (sic) I am a Law Abiding Citizen and a (sic) stand by everything I said with proof unlike the author of this post who made many misleading statements."
Regardless of his motivations, his apparent misstatement that "their (sic) is no gag order" directly contradicts what Goodwin told Dr. Hughes and others at the opening day of the re-hearing on the appeal of Espinoza’s indefinite suspension and later dismissal from the Kyle Police force on grounds of insubordination. And one of the attorneys I spoke with today told me I was absolutely correct to interpret Hurlston's comments as ones calling Goodwin a liar. One of the allegations against Espinoza is that he accepted cash and family vacations among other things from Hurlston in return for providing the doctor inside information that could be damaging to Barnett in the lawsuit Hurlston filed against Barnett, Kyle and others.
Attorney Grant Goodwin sought and won a continuance in Espinoza’s hearing earlier this month by convincing hearing examiner Dr. Paula Ann Hughes that a gag order issued in connection with a lawsuit Hurlston has filed against the City of Kyle, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett and others prevented Goodwin from eliciting the testimony he needed from Barnett.
"Let me enlighten you their (sic) is no gag order because it was issued by a lower court which dismissed the case so it no longer is in effect," Hurlston, using his favorite alias "Law Abiding Citizen," said Saturday in an e-mail. "The case is in a higher court so Barnett Attorney (sic) are hiding behind a gag order they know isn't inforceable (sic) or even applicable anymore."
However, an independent verification I conducted today with legal officials involved in the suit argues that Hurlston’s claims are simply not true. It is true the gag order was issued in a lower court case which was decided then appealed to a higher court. However, the legal sources in Fort Worth and Dallas I talked to today said the gag order accompanied that appeal and, thus, is still in effect.
It’s also strange that Hurlston would, in effect, call the attorney of someone representing the person alleged to be his co-conspirator in a plot to discredit Barnett a liar. However, in all fairness, I must add that Hurlston added language in his e-mail to suggest he was actually calling me a liar for writing a story suggesting Hurlston was defying the gag order by threatening to sue the City of Kyle until "I will bankrupt them into submission." The last sentence of Hurlston’s e-mail to me, in response to that story, said "So everything you said is just simply a lie an (sic) I am a Law Abiding Citizen and a (sic) stand by everything I said with proof unlike the author of this post who made many misleading statements."
Regardless of his motivations, his apparent misstatement that "their (sic) is no gag order" directly contradicts what Goodwin told Dr. Hughes and others at the opening day of the re-hearing on the appeal of Espinoza’s indefinite suspension and later dismissal from the Kyle Police force on grounds of insubordination. And one of the attorneys I spoke with today told me I was absolutely correct to interpret Hurlston's comments as ones calling Goodwin a liar. One of the allegations against Espinoza is that he accepted cash and family vacations among other things from Hurlston in return for providing the doctor inside information that could be damaging to Barnett in the lawsuit Hurlston filed against Barnett, Kyle and others.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Doctor, defying gag order, threatens to “bankrupt” Kyle “into submission”
Louisiana anesthesiologist Dr. Glen Hurlston, writing under the nom de plume "Law Abiding Citizen" to draw further attention to the fact he isn’t one, has sent this blog a note that not only defies a court-sanctioned gag order, but basically admits that all the legal action he and his cohort in intimidation, former Kyle police officer Jesse Espinoza, have filed are without merit and designed solely to outlast the City and coerce it into giving them a huge financial settlement.
This latest letter, which I interpreted as a direct threat, is one of many Hurlston has sent me using both his real name and his favorite masquerade all of which seem to be in direct violation of a gag order imposed on all parties involved a lawsuit Hurlston filed in December 2013 against the City of Kyle, the City of Princeton, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, Princeton Police Lieutenant Robert Mtchnik and others alleging a string of "unlawful police actions" resulting in "significant and severe emotional distress; physical pain and suffering; emotion pain and distress; loss of income; and other damages."
Espinoza was suspended from the Kyle police force on charges he supplied Hurlston with inside information on Barnett and in return for family vacations with Hurlston in San Antonio and Florida as well as a $5,000 contribution to Espinoza’s on-line fund-raising campaign to help pay for his son’s cancer treatments. Espinoza’s appeal of that suspension was delayed indefinitely last week, ironically because the hearing administrator believed a full and "clean" hearing on the matter would be impossible because the gag order that Hurlston continues to violate would limit full and complete testimony from Chief Barnett. What’s even more ironic is that the motion for the continuation, until after Hurlston’s suit is settled, was made by Espinoza’s attorney, lending further credence to the idea that Hurlston’s and Espinoza’s legal strategy is simply stretch out the legal actions so long the city will give up and cry "mercy" because of the expenses involved.
Hurlston’s latest letter to me was in response to an item I wrote for this blog about Kyle’s November sales tax revenues. The letter stated:
"Ask them how much they spent in lawyers defenses with Barnett and three more lawsuits yet to be filed all supported by myself. I will bankrupt them into submission. You see it cost me about ten dollars for every thousand they spend in legal cost. The reason is they use a corrupt law firm no one else will be their lawyer and play their corrupt game. I will force the city into the tens of millions."
Hurlston revealed himself to be "Law Abiding Citizen" in an earlier e-mail he sent me Nov. 14 using the phony moniker: "…my name is Glen Hurlston and I have no fear of the bogus gag order they are hiding behind because Barnett unlike myself is afraid to testify because he is guilty and would be caught in his lies and trying to explain his actiomd (sic) while he had nr (sic) falsely arrested. Glen Hurlston M. D."
To avoid appearances of conflict of interest, Kyle officials convinced former Waxahachie Police Chief Charles Edge to oversee KPD’s investigation of Espinoza. On Nov. 6, Hurlston wrote this e-mail to me concerning Edge, whom Hurlston called (the misspelling is Hurlston’s) "a well knoe idiot.":
"Has (sic) I recalled you wrote an article on what Chief Edge said that Jessie ESPINOZA lied about. Edge asked him if he spoke to me the night of city council meeting and he rrsponded (sic) he probably did. That's because it was a year earlier and Jessie being the officer he is he would have to check his phone records to make sure but said he probably did contact me. At that point Yge (sic) acting Chief Edge which by the way was brought in by the same law firm to prosecute Jessie and was a hired gun claimed he lied because he should have said yes. Absolutely absurd reasoning but chief Edge is a well knoe (sic) idiot in his town. He also said he can tell Jessie was lying because he would look to his left. Well he didn't realize Jessie is left handed and if you believe in that nonsense in the first place than being left handed makes a different (sic). Chief Edge what can you say about this guy the evidence and his testimony speak for itself."
In an e-mail dated March 17, meant, he wrote, for "City of Kyle Council members and others," Hurlston wrote this about Edge: "Chief Edge was by no means an impartial neutral party but yet a hired gun to eliminate Jessie Espinoza from the police force."
In another letter, dated Oct. 31, which I personally found particularly disgusting and offensive on Hurlston’s part because of disparaging comments he made about my son, an outstanding man of the highest character Hurlston has never even met, the doctor wrote the following in response to my story on Espinoza’s latest lawsuit: "I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because you are probably drinking the city koolaid. But if you had a copy of the arbitration hearing that the city has refused to release even though ordered to do so by the Texas attorney General you would no (sic) that Mr. ESPINOZA Never lied and neither did I when I testified in federal depositions or in the arbitration that I had gifted him 5000 dollars for his child ridden with cancer. Your son who is a chiropractor doesn't understand true illness and the cost of real medical therapy and apparently you don't either. But what I find more disgusting is the use of this child cancer and the donation I made to rid of it is being used by the likes of people like you and Barnett to hide the real truth. This city lies and the police lie to cover their criminal activity and now you have lied."
Hurlston’s words speak for themselves.
This latest letter, which I interpreted as a direct threat, is one of many Hurlston has sent me using both his real name and his favorite masquerade all of which seem to be in direct violation of a gag order imposed on all parties involved a lawsuit Hurlston filed in December 2013 against the City of Kyle, the City of Princeton, Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, Princeton Police Lieutenant Robert Mtchnik and others alleging a string of "unlawful police actions" resulting in "significant and severe emotional distress; physical pain and suffering; emotion pain and distress; loss of income; and other damages."
Espinoza was suspended from the Kyle police force on charges he supplied Hurlston with inside information on Barnett and in return for family vacations with Hurlston in San Antonio and Florida as well as a $5,000 contribution to Espinoza’s on-line fund-raising campaign to help pay for his son’s cancer treatments. Espinoza’s appeal of that suspension was delayed indefinitely last week, ironically because the hearing administrator believed a full and "clean" hearing on the matter would be impossible because the gag order that Hurlston continues to violate would limit full and complete testimony from Chief Barnett. What’s even more ironic is that the motion for the continuation, until after Hurlston’s suit is settled, was made by Espinoza’s attorney, lending further credence to the idea that Hurlston’s and Espinoza’s legal strategy is simply stretch out the legal actions so long the city will give up and cry "mercy" because of the expenses involved.
Hurlston’s latest letter to me was in response to an item I wrote for this blog about Kyle’s November sales tax revenues. The letter stated:
"Ask them how much they spent in lawyers defenses with Barnett and three more lawsuits yet to be filed all supported by myself. I will bankrupt them into submission. You see it cost me about ten dollars for every thousand they spend in legal cost. The reason is they use a corrupt law firm no one else will be their lawyer and play their corrupt game. I will force the city into the tens of millions."
Hurlston revealed himself to be "Law Abiding Citizen" in an earlier e-mail he sent me Nov. 14 using the phony moniker: "…my name is Glen Hurlston and I have no fear of the bogus gag order they are hiding behind because Barnett unlike myself is afraid to testify because he is guilty and would be caught in his lies and trying to explain his actiomd (sic) while he had nr (sic) falsely arrested. Glen Hurlston M. D."
To avoid appearances of conflict of interest, Kyle officials convinced former Waxahachie Police Chief Charles Edge to oversee KPD’s investigation of Espinoza. On Nov. 6, Hurlston wrote this e-mail to me concerning Edge, whom Hurlston called (the misspelling is Hurlston’s) "a well knoe idiot.":
"Has (sic) I recalled you wrote an article on what Chief Edge said that Jessie ESPINOZA lied about. Edge asked him if he spoke to me the night of city council meeting and he rrsponded (sic) he probably did. That's because it was a year earlier and Jessie being the officer he is he would have to check his phone records to make sure but said he probably did contact me. At that point Yge (sic) acting Chief Edge which by the way was brought in by the same law firm to prosecute Jessie and was a hired gun claimed he lied because he should have said yes. Absolutely absurd reasoning but chief Edge is a well knoe (sic) idiot in his town. He also said he can tell Jessie was lying because he would look to his left. Well he didn't realize Jessie is left handed and if you believe in that nonsense in the first place than being left handed makes a different (sic). Chief Edge what can you say about this guy the evidence and his testimony speak for itself."
In an e-mail dated March 17, meant, he wrote, for "City of Kyle Council members and others," Hurlston wrote this about Edge: "Chief Edge was by no means an impartial neutral party but yet a hired gun to eliminate Jessie Espinoza from the police force."
In another letter, dated Oct. 31, which I personally found particularly disgusting and offensive on Hurlston’s part because of disparaging comments he made about my son, an outstanding man of the highest character Hurlston has never even met, the doctor wrote the following in response to my story on Espinoza’s latest lawsuit: "I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because you are probably drinking the city koolaid. But if you had a copy of the arbitration hearing that the city has refused to release even though ordered to do so by the Texas attorney General you would no (sic) that Mr. ESPINOZA Never lied and neither did I when I testified in federal depositions or in the arbitration that I had gifted him 5000 dollars for his child ridden with cancer. Your son who is a chiropractor doesn't understand true illness and the cost of real medical therapy and apparently you don't either. But what I find more disgusting is the use of this child cancer and the donation I made to rid of it is being used by the likes of people like you and Barnett to hide the real truth. This city lies and the police lie to cover their criminal activity and now you have lied."
Hurlston’s words speak for themselves.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Anthem developer proposes new water deal
The Kyle City Council is scheduled to consider Tuesday evening a proposal from Clark Wilson, the developer of the proposed 673-acre Anthem subdivision located about a mile northwest of the intersection of FM 150 and RR 2770 in Mountain’s City’s extra-territorial jurisdiction, that would call for Kyle to sell water and wastewater services to Anthem through infrastructure provided and paid for by Anthem.
The proposal would presumably replace a far more complicated proposed Interlocal Agreement that would have ultimately led to Anthem being annexed by the City of Kyle. Under Wilson’s latest proposal, Anthem would remain in Mountain City’s ETJ under the terms of a Development Agreement signed in December 2014 by Wilson and Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Carnutt. The proposed Interlocal Agreement created a political turmoil in Mountain City, arising from the fact that many of that community’s residents did not want Kyle to annex the subdivision.
Prior to considering Wilson’s latest proposal, the Kyle City Council is supposed to rescinding approval of the ILA with Mountain City and Hays County, which could be moot anyway because, the way I understand it, Hays County withdrew from the deal several months ago and was replaced by the City of Dripping Springs.
Under the terms of the agreement, Mountain City 150, a limited partnership Wilson formed when he signed the original Development Agreement with Mountain City, "at its own cost and expense, will construct a potable water distribution system" so that Kyle can provide water services to the estimated 1,900 residences in the project as well as "wastewater improvements and all necessary facilities to allow (Kyle) to provide retail wastewater services to the customers." Presumably, although it’s not actually stated in Wilson’s proposal, Kyle would bill the customers directly for the water and wastewater services.
In addition, Wilson would, through MC 150, pay Kyle "funds to assist in financing offsite improvements, including expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment plant," which, depending on the amount he plans to chip in, could be just the sweetener needed for the council to look favorably on the deal. Wilson’s proposal says "The amount, timing of payment and all details shall be included in a binding retail water and wastewater services agreement."
If agreed to, the agreement could end a lot of the current friction that exists among the neighboring communities of Kyle, Mountain City and, lately, Buda, which has expressed its dissatisfaction with a deal Kyle is trying to negotiate involving the Dahlstrom Ranch, property the city needed to acquire in order to legally annex Anthem, but may not be needed under this latest proposal. It would also appease local critics who argued Kyle did not need to add such a large chunk of residential property owners to the city’s tax rolls because the property tax burden already falls too heavily on homeowners.
There is no public hearing attached to either agenda item — the one to rescind the ILA and the companion piece to approve Wilson’s latest offer — so any citizen wishing to speak for or against either issue will have to do so during the public comment section that begins the 7 p.m. council session.
As reported earlier, the City Council will not consider Tuesday a zoning change that could have resulted in a truck stop in South Kyle, but it is expected to consider:
The proposal would presumably replace a far more complicated proposed Interlocal Agreement that would have ultimately led to Anthem being annexed by the City of Kyle. Under Wilson’s latest proposal, Anthem would remain in Mountain City’s ETJ under the terms of a Development Agreement signed in December 2014 by Wilson and Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Carnutt. The proposed Interlocal Agreement created a political turmoil in Mountain City, arising from the fact that many of that community’s residents did not want Kyle to annex the subdivision.
Prior to considering Wilson’s latest proposal, the Kyle City Council is supposed to rescinding approval of the ILA with Mountain City and Hays County, which could be moot anyway because, the way I understand it, Hays County withdrew from the deal several months ago and was replaced by the City of Dripping Springs.
Under the terms of the agreement, Mountain City 150, a limited partnership Wilson formed when he signed the original Development Agreement with Mountain City, "at its own cost and expense, will construct a potable water distribution system" so that Kyle can provide water services to the estimated 1,900 residences in the project as well as "wastewater improvements and all necessary facilities to allow (Kyle) to provide retail wastewater services to the customers." Presumably, although it’s not actually stated in Wilson’s proposal, Kyle would bill the customers directly for the water and wastewater services.
In addition, Wilson would, through MC 150, pay Kyle "funds to assist in financing offsite improvements, including expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment plant," which, depending on the amount he plans to chip in, could be just the sweetener needed for the council to look favorably on the deal. Wilson’s proposal says "The amount, timing of payment and all details shall be included in a binding retail water and wastewater services agreement."
If agreed to, the agreement could end a lot of the current friction that exists among the neighboring communities of Kyle, Mountain City and, lately, Buda, which has expressed its dissatisfaction with a deal Kyle is trying to negotiate involving the Dahlstrom Ranch, property the city needed to acquire in order to legally annex Anthem, but may not be needed under this latest proposal. It would also appease local critics who argued Kyle did not need to add such a large chunk of residential property owners to the city’s tax rolls because the property tax burden already falls too heavily on homeowners.
There is no public hearing attached to either agenda item — the one to rescind the ILA and the companion piece to approve Wilson’s latest offer — so any citizen wishing to speak for or against either issue will have to do so during the public comment section that begins the 7 p.m. council session.
As reported earlier, the City Council will not consider Tuesday a zoning change that could have resulted in a truck stop in South Kyle, but it is expected to consider:
- Much needed additional emphasis on storm water management including elevating it to an actual utility, under a proposed ordinance amendment, and levying punishments against those who pollute the storm water system. As part of this, the council could consider the concept of Limited Impact Districts in Kyle, which would go a long way to make the city greener in terms of water and energy conservation.
- Council member Becky Selberra’s request for a "discussion on smoking ordinance," which presumably has to do with Section 23-182 of Ordinance 334 which states "It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits, in any way, to intentionally or carelessly burn or cause to be burned any combustibles which causes noxious smoke or smoke of a significant quantity or quality to be released so as to inhibit the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties is hereby declared a nuisance and is hereby prohibited." I have, however, unsuccessfully tried to find any ordinance regarding smoking by citizens in public facilities so perhaps she wants to talk about that. Your guess is as good as mine on this one. I have reached out to council member Selberra requesting she provide me some specifics.
- Council member Diane Hervol’s request to learn about and make public the city’s plans to provide public transportation for those citizens, many of whom are elderly, who relied on Austin’s Cap Metro before the city terminated that contract late last year.
- The disposition, delivered as part of the city manager’s report, of a lawsuit between the city and Dr. Glen Hurlston of Princeton, Texas, who sued both the cities of Princeton and Kyle in federal court alleging Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett abused his powers by ordering Hurlston’s arrest for the domestic abuse of his then-wife, Suzanne, who gave birth to a child fathered by Barnett.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Random thoughts involving the appeal hearing of Jesse Espinoza
Back before he became the high-sheriff of our fair city, Jeff Barnett was the police chief in Princeton, a town of 7,700 folks about eight or so miles east of McKinney, Texas, in Collin County, which is on the northern border of Dallas County. It’s main claim to fame is its relatively low tax rate, the result of it being a General Law city, not a home Rule one. While serving as police chief there, Barnett had a sexual affair with Suzanne Hurlston, who was then the wife of local anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston. On March 15, 2011, Suzanne gave birth to a boy fathered by Barnett but assumed at the time by Dr. Hurlston to be his child. In fact, they named the child Gerard Jeffrey Blake Hurlston. Dr. Hurlston said during testimony Monday at the appeal hearing of Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza that he had absolutely no clue the child wasn’t his until he was tipped off 10 months later by Suzanne’s former fiancee, who has also fathered two children with Suzanne, that Barnett was showing up at Dr. Hurlston’s house when the doctor wasn’t there.
Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.
All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.
There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.
But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."
So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.
The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.
What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:
Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.
Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.
Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?
Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.
Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.
What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."
So there’s that.
Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.
All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.
There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.
But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."
So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.
The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.
What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:
Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.
Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.
Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?
Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.
Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.
What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."
So there’s that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)