Ethics

Does JPS Have a Plug-Pulling Problem?

Posted by |

A medical director at Tarrant County’s John Peter Smith Hospital has allegedly been pulling the plug on patients she deems worthy of death, without family consent or an ethics panel decision, in violation of state law. Sources tell Direct Action Texas there are numerous patients who have fallen victim to this doctor’s plug-pulling habit in the past year.

State statute outlines a clear process for hospitals to follow for end of life decisions. There are three ways to legally terminate care.

  • Have the family (guardian) grant consent. This is the most difficult decision a family member can face.
  • In the absence of family consent, an ethics panel of medical professionals must make the decision. This is a 12-day process. The family must first be notified 48 hours prior to the panel convening. Then, if the panel decides to terminate care, the family must be given a 10-day notice before the decision is carried out.
  • A doctor can terminate care if they determine the patient to be medically “brain dead.” This is a slippery slope as the medical community does not have a clear consensus on the definition of brain dead. There are, however, several tests that can be used to make this diagnosis.

Sources have told Direct Action Texas that patient’s lives have been ended without family consent, a decision of the ethics panel, or any testing to determine the patient was brain dead or any indication of that assertion. This doctor is allegedly skipping all three steps and taking it upon herself to make the final decision to pull the plug. Read More

Another Judicial Candidate in Hot Water, Again

Posted by |

The spotlight is on Kimberly Fitzpatrick, candidate for District Judge, once again, for violating the law. This time it is for illegally accepting $2,000 in campaign contributions from a corporation.

Last month Direct Action Texas filed a complaint on Fitzpatrick with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct concerning an illegal endorsement. We also filed a complaint on Probate Court Judge candidate Catherine Goodman, this time with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC). Our complaint was affirmed, Goodman took an improper donation of $10,000 from a husband and wife. Then, just yesterday, we called attention to Patricia Cole, candidate for Probate Court Judge, for her reporting of a campaign contribution from a corporation. Now we have found that Kimberly Fitzpatrick has violated Texas Election Code 253.091 as well.

On her May 15 filing, Fitzpatrick lists an in-kind Contribution of $2,000 from Chamas Do Brazil, otherwise known as HLQ, Inc., a corporation. Section 253.094 of the Election Code lists this offense as a third-degree felony. Punishment for a felony of this type is 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

Former Mayor and Attorney Kimberly Fitzpatrick did not know the law or ignored it. Either way, is this someone that should be the next Tarrant County District Court Judge for District 342? The District 342 Court handles civil cases with judgements that can reach up into the millions and higher. The judge for that court must be someone with integrity and an attention to detail, not someone who has come under legal scrutiny twice during her campaign.

We must hold our judges and judicial candidates to a higher standard. We must know that our judges have the utmost integrity and would not violate the law for financial gain, to win an election, or for any other reason. We must also know that our judges are knowledgeable. There is no room for error when people’s lives and livelihoods are on the line. Tarrant County deserves judges that take the time to study the law and not make potentially criminal mistakes. Tarrant County has a chance to choose on May 22nd. Choose wisely.

TEC Rules In Favor of DAT’s Complaint Against Catherine Goodman

Posted by |

The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) has affirmed Direct Action Texas’ complaint against Catherine Goodman, former candidate for Tarrant County Probate Court 1.  DAT filed the complaint when we noticed that Goodman had accepted $5,000 over the limit set by the Judicial Fairness Act from a married couple. (For the original article on the complaint click HERE.)

The married couple in question are Dyann and Jere McCully. Dyann McCully is an attorney and a partner at the Blum Firm.  According to their website, they are “the largest estate planning firm in Texas and the largest boutique firm in the United States solely dedicated to estate planning.” McCully and her firm would certainly benefit from a friendly Probate Court Judge.

In her Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, Goodman admits to accepting the contributions, but “swore that she did not accept the contributions knowing they were in excess of the limits.” Goodman also claims that her first knowledge of the violation was DAT’s article. This may be true, but ignorance of the law is not a good habit for a lawyer, and especially not someone seeking to become a judge.

Goodman has allegedly returned the $5,000 contribution and the TEC will not assess a civil penalty. Goodman’s former opponents could still pursue civil damages, however.

Once again DAT has illustrated the importance of constant vigilance. The limitations of the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act are well known but the TEC will not act unless someone files a complaint. Candidates as well as elected officials must be held accountable.

Probate Court Candidate Goodman’s Fuzzy Math

Posted by |

Catherine Goodman is using some fuzzy math to manipulate the results of the Tarrant County Bar Association (TCBA) Survey to declare herself the highest rated candidate. Goodman is the candidate for Judge, Probate Court 1 that almost didn’t make it on the ballot. She had to withdraw her application for a place on the ballot and reapply. Inside sources say this was due to problems with her petition signatures. Goodman has also struggled with her campaign finance compliance, as reported by Direct Action Texas. Now it looks like Goodman has chosen to manipulate the results of the TCBA Survey to boost her chances.

The Tarrant County Bar Association asked its members to rate each candidate as well qualified, qualified, or not qualified. If they didn’t know the candidate, they were instructed to answer, “No Opinion.” At first glance, Mark Sullivan has the highest rating with 25% well qualified versus Goodman’s 23.1% well qualified. If you look at the raw number of votes, Sullivan is still ahead with 151 well qualified to Goodman’s 139.

Goodman would like you to throw out the “No Opinion” votes and recalculate the percentages. That would skew the numbers in her favor, giving her 54% for well qualified to Sullivan’s 51%. However, that method is statistically insignificant. Remove the “No Opinion” vote and you are suddenly comparing apples to oranges. The results cannot be compared when there is now a different number of people voting in each candidate’s survey. If you wanted to properly discount the “No Opinion” voters you would have to compare the categories individually, as shown here. Those numbers still put Mark Sullivan on top.

Perhaps the more interesting numbers are not those of Goodman and Sullivan, but those of Patricia Cole. With 117 votes for “Not Qualified,” no matter which way you calculate it, she has the highest number in that category.

Catherine Goodman had difficulties following the law when applying for a position on the ballot, disregarded campaign finance laws, and is now manipulating results to show them in her favor. On the campaign trail she says she writes the law and that she knows the law, but can she follow the law?

Pin It on Pinterest