[ I ]
May 17, 2001
Judge Byno to Continue to Jail Women & Children in Haltom City:
Haltom City Continues and Increases Jailing of Women & Children
_______________
Excerpts from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (newspaper) -
Thursday May 17, 2001:
"HALTOM COUNCIL DELAYS DECISION ABOUT JUDGE" [Section B:1; B:9]
"HALTOM CITY - ....Sherri Hanks, who was jailed after she did
not pay two traffic tickets, said she saw a judge who was quick
to raise fines and put people in jail. [ Sherri Thompson, sharing
the Haltom City Jail Cell with her ] said she was in danger of losing
her home because of the prolonged jail time for traffic tickets,
Hanks said."
"You shouldn't have to lose your house over a ...traffic ticket",
the "Star-Telegram" newspaper "employee" said. 'My problem was stupidity,
I should have paid my tickets, but they treat you like you are a
'"murderer".' "
"Sherri Thompson also served time this week [in Haltom City Jail],
for unpaid traffic violations. She said Byno "raised" her fines to
$ 3,400. "
"I don't understand ALL of it," Thompson said [while] in Haltom
City Jail. "ALL I 'know' is that I want to go home" [said Sherri
Thompson].
"Faced with such ...'images' at Mondays [ May 14, 2001 ] [Haltom
City Council ] meeting, the council postponed a decision to June 11th,
about whether it should appoint Byno."
"Laura Bennet stepped to the microphone first [ at the Monday's Haltom
City council meetimg ]. She spoke of an 'arrogant and sadistic' man
who sentenced her 'middle-aged' son to attend 'high school' with her
'grandson' for the remaining weeks of school.....Bennet's grandson
was abscent from high school for almost all of January [ 2001 ].
He had been pulled out of school in February [ 2001 ] with his parents
promise that he would be 'home-schooled', but by May [ 2001 ] the
family had not started a 'home-school' program, court records
indicate."
"Byno said, 'residents' NEED TO KNOW, that 'those' HE JAILS, have
'two' things in common: NONE of THEM want to be there, AND NONE
consider HIM a FRIEND."
" 'Everyone wants you to be someone different, and it's a tough
position' [ for HIM to be in].....'These [ are people who ] have
had several chances and several tickets' [Byno said]."
"Byno is paid $ 44,000 annually, plus health benifits AND retirement
for handling [ ONLY ] three (3) 'court days' a week, 'presiding' over
'daily arraignments' AND being available 24 HOURS a day to SIGN WARRANTS
and 'other documents'." [ Byno was 'elected' in 1999, after former Judge
Kenneth Hale did not run]. "[BYNO said] '...The people I see are NOT
HAPPY to be HERE [ in Jail ].'" "I have NEVER had someone say, 'I am SURE
GLAD I GOT THIS TICKET." "[Byno] noted that one 'prisoner' had seven (7)
tickets dating to November 1999...[with]...fines [of] more than $ 2,000..
Another had five (5) 'offenses'."
"Haltom City changed the 'judgeship' from an 'elected' to an 'appointed'
position in December [ 2000 ] to 'conform' with a 1999 [Texas] state law,
'THE UNIFORM COURT OF RECORDS ACT'."The law 'requires ....that communities
'appoint' judges....'."
"The people who are being affected by him [Byno] need to be the ones with
the 'power' over 'him', NOT 'the other way around', [said Sherri] Hanks."
"Residents have had the 'opportunity' to 'bring their views' BEFORE the
'council', [said] Haltom City Manager PAT ELFRINK....'."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
[ II ]
Haltom City Continues and Increases Jailing of Women & Children
_______________
Excerpts from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (newspaper) -
Sunday February 4, 2001
"Truancy crackdown...."
HALTOM CITY - Jan Totin cried when a judge [ Haltom City
Municipal Judge Jack Byno ] told her that she had 30 minutes
to pay $ 2,000 in truancy-related fines OR she would spend 22
days in jail....
Her son, Trent Totin, had 24 unexcused abscences from Haltom High
School -- were....reduced when a doctor's notes were provided."
Trent Totin (17) was still left with two citations against himself,
and two citations against his mother, Jan, accusing her of thwarting
compulsory attendance law, which with court fees, totaled
more than $ 2,000......", Jan Totin's sister, Cindi Higgins,
said, "We've got people dealing drugs out there, and we
are going to put people in jail for "two" unexcused absecences....."
Bill Kidd, former Keller School District Adminstrator and
Attendance Officer said, "It wasn't always like this....", [before] school
administrators, including himself, "ignored" unexcused
absenses.
"The State [ of Texas ] pays schools $ 15 daily for each
student in attendance.".... "Students must be in class 90 %
of the time to earn credit."
"Truancy has been illegal in Texas since 1973. But it was
'civil law' ...judges could NOT impose fines. In 1995,
the state added 'failure to attend school' and 'thwarting
compulsary attendance; to the 'Education Law'," [ which
'criminalized' school absences, a Clsss "C" misdemeanor.]
[ all empahsis added]
"....Most judges put first time offenders on probation....
If the student misses school again, the parents will pay
fines."
"Haltom City Judge Jack Byno....is the ONLY judge in Northeast
Tarrant County who asks the attendance officer to cite
the student AND the parents in EVERY instance. Other judges
leave that to the discreation of attendance officers."
Sunday February 4, 2001
"Haltom Judge says he is 'tough but fair'...."
"[Byno, 34]....who graduated from the Southern Illinois
University School of Law, [said] 'I am never going to please
everyone, so I need to do what I think is best for those
students. Byno, the father of two boys and a girl, splits
[his] time between the Haltom City courtroom AND the law
practice he shares with his wife, [at] BYNO & BYNO in Bedford."
As a 'lawyer', he defends clients who are accused of 'drunken
driving', 'speeding' and 'violating city codes' As a 'judge',
he depenses decisions about 'traffic tickets', people who
don't cut their lawns', and 'STUDENTS' who do NOT attend school."
[ empasis added]
"Others disagree. Jan Totin was fined $ 2,285 in December (2000)
in Haltom City Municipal Court for 'thwarting the compulsary
attendance law' . Her 17 year old son....suffers from 'migraine
headaches' after a 'childhood brain injury', [and] was cited
for 'failure to attend school'.....[Jan Totin said] I've never
seen anyone so condescending...."
NOTES:
[1] Texas Education Code 25.085
"Compulsary School Attendance"
A child must be in school everyday of the school year.
"...Children 'can' be cited for failure to attend school"
[2] Texas Education Code 25.093
Thwarting Compulsary Attendance Law
"Parents are required to send their children to school.
If they fail to do so 'after written warnings', they
'can' be cited with 'thwarting compulsary attendance law',
a 'class C misdemeanor'. [The ] maximum fine is $ 500 per
citation". [emphasis added]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
[ III ]
May 10, 2001
Rep. Vicki Truitt
State of Texas House of Representatives
District 98
Capitol Building
Austin, Texas
RE: Texas HB-363 ; Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001),
US Supreme Crt; Courts of Record;
Enforcement vs. Punishment;
Crime Districts; and Militarization of Police
Dear Rep. Vicki Truitt:
I am writing to support HB 363 as sponsored by Rep. Galego.
I have below an attachment I emailed to the Texas Speaker
of the House of Representatives, as a help in an attempt to
solve problems in part caused by the US Supreme Court, in
"Atwater v. Lago Vista"(US Supreme Crt, May 24, 2001)# 99-1408.
......
I have for years, complained to the US Department of Justice,
about constant harassment and abuse from local Police......
[and I have asked them to] investigate my claims of "deprivation
of US rights", by harassments and abuse of Police.
I have also sent emails to the US Senate "Judiciary Committee",
as well to the US Senate as a "whole"......
As I say above, I have for years, as the "vast majority"
of Americans have, been subjected to many "instances" of
Police harassments. It is "pathetic" that it took the "arrest"
and "jailing" of a woman and "threats" of arrests of her
children, to bring this to the attention of the public.
But, here in Haltom City, as well as all across Texas,
"women" and their "children" are also subject to "obscene"
fines and jail terms, "only" for failure to have their
children to attend school. Here in Texas, clearly a "jail-
prison industrial complex" has evolved, along with the
gowing "paranoia", among "all" police forces in Texas.
There is also the problem of "militarization" of the Texas
police, begining 20 years ago, when the US Congress
greatly "weakened" the ['plain terms' of] the "Posse Comitatus Act",
[signed into law in June 1878, by President Hayes.] This
act "specifically" prohibited "any" US Military forces
from "acting" as a "police force". This was "ammended"
in 1981 [by the US Congress] to "permit" the "militarization"
of America's police forces. [ In 1981 the US Congress
passed the "Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act".
That law amended the 'Posse Comitatus Act' insofar as it authorized the
military to "assist" civilian police in the enforcement of drug laws.
The act 'encouraged the military' to (a) make available equipment,
military bases, and research facilities to federal, state, and
'local police'; (b) train and advise 'civilian police' on the use of
the equipment; and (c) assist law enforcement personnel in keeping
drugs from entering the country. The act 'also' authorized the 'military'
to 'share information' acquired 'during military operations' with 'civilian
law enforcement' agencies.] And [so these laws] have now produced an
American police force "hostile" to even "law abiding" Americans.
Never before in the history of Man, has "any" government
"confined" so many persons for so "few" real "crimes" to
jails as has Texas. Not even the "old" Soviet Union
confined as many persons to jail or prison as has Texas.
It has become "routine" in Texas for Police to "harass", and
to "jail" the ordinary citizen of Texas, for the most "arbitrary"
reasons. This is the "final impact" of whatever the original
"policy" was that was developed over 20 years ago.
Trying to find some "clue" as to "what" this "policy objective"
was that has caused these "problems" of "harassment" and
"obsessions" with "jailing" even women and children, I began to search
the Attorney General's "own" WEB site for information. I "found" what
I "think" are the earliest such references to such a "policy". First,
in the "Opinion" of Jim Maddox, AG-Opinion # JM-107 (1983), Mr. Maddox
essentially says that it "is" legal for "misdemeanor" violations (and
including 'Class C misdemeanors' ) to be (1) punished by 'fine', 'jail',
or 'both'; and (2) it "must" be "enforced" by "jail" as well. Every Texas
Attorney General has built upon "that" opinion, even going so far as to
authorize "city judges" to issue "commitment orders" sending "class A and B
misdemeanors vioators" to jail (clear violations to Texas Statutes and the
Texas Constitution). And so they have "legalized" the "jailing" of persons
for "misdemeanor" violations in "general" and "Class C misdemeanors" in
particular, "at will" [by ONLY "city judges"].
They have also "elevated" the "status" of "Municipal" judges to
the level of "County" and even "State District" courts, which are
powers "not" expressly given to them by either the Texas Legislature,
nor by the Texas Constitution. They have "effectively" given to
"municipal" judges, the power of State and County courts, to "jail"
anyone for a "Class A, B, AND C Misdemeanors".
In addition, from about 1980, there has been a "flood" of city
governments, from the largest cities such as Houston, Dallas,
and Fort Worth, to their surrounding suburbs, in obtaining "Courts
of Records", NOT to "increase" JUSTICE, but to increase "revenues".
Having "Courts of Records" of course allows them "greater power"
to "jail" citizens for "class C misdemeanors", and of course, "class
A and B misdemeanors" , by the proceedure of "enforcement", and by
"commitment orders" as opposed to "punishment". It also makes it almost
"impossible" to "successfully" appeal any "decision" by a "court of record".
Again, the Opinions of the various Texas Attorney Generals have
"created" a "body of law" (by an "interpretation" of a combination of US,
Texas, constitutional, and statutory case law, and Opinions of Texas
Attorney Generals). This "enables" the "jailing of persons" by Police
forces for entirely "arbitrary" reasons.
From a "policy impact" point of view, the "impact" of the "policy of
'courts of records', 'enforcements' verses 'punishments' of law,
of 'commitment orders' and 'adoption' of 'crime districts' by
'municipalities', and the 'militarization of police forces' ", has
"resulted" ONLY in the "negative" effects of "jailing" INNOCENT women,
children, and men.
This "warped" policy also "allows" for the "rape", literally, of
women, children of both sexes, and of men, in local and county
jails, who are mostly "law abiding" citizens. (SEE: Haltom City Judge
Kenneth Hale's EDITORIAL in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 15,
1996). "Real" crime in Texas, like the rest of America, has "dropped",
NOT because of the "para-military" police forces we now have, but
because the "true" criminal "elements" of our state and nation have
simply "aged" to the point where they simply "don't" commit crimes
as often as they did when younger.
The "final impact" of this "policy" of "abuse" by Police and
Courts in Texas, has been the "criminalization" of the "honest"
people of Texas.
Therefore, please try to "stop", and "reverse" this "insane" policy of
the "jailing" of Texas.
Sincerly,
Michael Lynn Mincy
***
Email: mmincy@juno.com
mmincy@aol.com
Phone: 817 834 6744
Postal Address: Michael Mincy
5425 Mallory Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76117
********************
SOURCES:
1. Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0312 (November 30, 2000)
In Attorney General Opinion DM-313, the question was posed whether the Ector
County sheriff could refuse to accept prisoners arrested by the Midland city
police for violations of state statutes after a municipal judge had issued a
commitment order for those prisoners. On the basis of article 2.18 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the opinion answered that question in the
negative. It noted that a refusal to accept such prisoners
"is not an exercise of discretion, but is rather, according to the
plain language of article 2.18, a violation of duty. The sheriff
cannot avoid the cost of his duty by refusal to undertake it.
Accordingly, once the commitment order is issued, the responsibility
for maintaining these state law prisoners devolves upon the county."
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-313 (1995) at 2 (emphasis added).
You suggest that "when a commitment order does exist[,] it is unclear as
to how the sheriff's duty under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.18
should be interpreted." Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. We disagree.
In our view, the clear import of the statutory language, and of its
interpretation by Attorney General Opinion DM-313, is that the prisoner
is the sheriff's responsibility from the time of the issuance of the
commitment order.
"It is a violation of duty on the part of any sheriff to permit a
defendant to remain out of jail[;] . . . he shall so guard the accused
as to prevent escape." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.18
(Vernon 1977). This duty does not commence, as you suggest, "only when
a prisoner is brought to the jail." Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2;
see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-169 (1973) at 2 (duty of sheriff to see
that prisoners committed to jail by magistrate in city outside county
seat are transported to county jail). Rather the duty and its attendant
costs devolve upon the county "once the commitment order is issued."
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-313 (1995) at 2."
2. Attorney General Opinion DM-313 (1995)
"[1] You ask first whether, if a city police officer arrests a person for
violating a state criminal statute and a magistrate issues a commitment
order for the person, the county is required to incarcerate the person.
In our view, Attorney General Opinion JM-151 (1984) and article 2.18 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure both answer this question in the affirmative.
Article 2.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "[w]hen a
prisoner is committed to jail by warrant from a magistrate or court, he
shall be placed in jail by the sheriff." To permit such a prisoner to remain
out of jail "is a violation of duty on the part of [the] sheriff."
Accordingly, Attorney General Opinion JM-151 held that a county jail was
required to accept state statute violators after a magistrate had committed
them to the jail. JM-151, at 2.
[2] Your second question concerns whether a municipal judge may issue such
a commitment order, particularly when the offense charged is a class A or B
misdemeanor. The warrant of commitment is defined by article 16.20 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which further stipulates its requisites.
According to article 16.20, "A 'commitment' is an order signed by the
proper magistrate directing a sheriff to receive and place in jail the
person so committed."
"It has been suggested that municipal court judges, however, are not
"proper" magistrates, and therefore lack power to issue enforceable
commitment orders, because they cannot try class A and B misdemeanors.
THE TERM IS NOT DEFINED IN THE STATUTE. However, reading article 16.20
in its entirety, WE [HAVE DECIDED THAT WE] are 'satisfied' that "proper"
refers to venue only.
One of the requisites of the commitment order is "[w]hen the prisoner is
sent out of the county where the prosecution arose,
the warrant of commitment shall state that there is no safe jail in
the proper county." In our view, reading this requirement together
with the reference to a "proper magistrate," a proper magistrate is
one who holds office in the proper county. Accordingly, we find no basis
for the argument that municipal judges may not issue commitment orders for
persons accused of class A or B misdemeanors."
3. Attorney General Opinion No. JM-1009 (January 16, 1989)
["In Ex parte Devereaux, supra, the court upheld a
conviction for speeding in violation of a municipal
ordinance which apparently altered the prima facie
speed limit set in article 6701d and prescribed a
punishment different than section 143 of the statute.
The court invalidated the ordinance as to punishment,
but said :
'[i]nsofar as the ordinance alters the prima facie
speed limits set out in Sec. 166(a) of Article 6701d,
under authority of Secs. 166(a), 167, and 169, and
implements said statute without altering or modifying
the basic rule established in paragraph (a) of Sec. 166,
it is valid and a conviction for violation of the state statute,
implemented by the ordinance, with punishment authorized by
Sec. 143 of said Article 6701d ... Devereaux at 673.
See also Norris v. State, 576 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). ' "]
4. Attorney General Opinion JM-312 (April 26, 1985)
5. Attorney General Opinion JM-151 (1984)
6. Attorney General Opinion JM-107 (December 29, 1983)
[ Jim Maddox believed that: "we conclude that two misdemeanor
sentences pronounced on the same day are to be served cumulatively
when one sentence authorizes imprisonment and the other a fine.
In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the distinction drawn
by the legislature and the courts between fines and imprisonment as
forms of punishment.
The Texas courts' practice of separating fines from imprisonment is,
in our view, consistent with the judgment of other courts that[;]
'confinement for nonpayment of a fine is "not punishment"
for that offense; rather "confinement" serves as an
"enforcement device" for "collection of the fine".
See "18 A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice 7.4" and
"cases cited therein". "Texas courts" have observed this
"practice" even in cases involving multiple sentences where
each sentence involves a fine and/or a jail term.
Williams v. State, 287 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1956)
(3 sentences--(1) one year in jail, (2) $100 fine,
(3) one year and $50 fine--to be served consecutively although not
expressly made cumulative); Bristow v. State, 267 S.W.2d 415
(Tex.Crim.App.1954) (2 sentences, each for six months in jail and
$300 fine--jail terms served concurrently, fines discharged
cumulatively ); Paris v. State, 135 S.W. 381 (Tex.Crim.App.1911)
(2 sentences--(1) $25 fine and six months imprisonment and
(2) $50 fine--to be served cumulatively upon order of sentencing court).
Moreover, a 'contrary rule' would, IN OUR OPINION, encourage misdemeanants
to avoid payment of fines; the policy of this state as expressed by the
legislature and courts does not warrant such an outcome.' "
7. Attorney General Opinion MW-52 (1979)
[ Mark White believed that: "...[NO] person arrested
for violating a 'municipal ordinance' could LEGALLY be
incarcerated in the county jail...." ]
8. Attorney General Opinion H-169 (1973)
9. Attorney General Opinion M-58 (1967)
10. Attorney General Opinion C-654 (1966)
11. Attorney General Opinions C-467 (1965)
12. Attorney General Opinions WW-1352 (1962); WW-1204 (1961)
13. Attorney General Opinion V-1147 (1951)
14. Attorney General Opinion V-1031 (1950)
15. Attorney General Opinion V-745 (1948)
16. Attorney General Opinion O-7353 (1946)
17. Attorney General Opinion O-5416 (1943)
18. Attorney General Opinion O-5046 (1943)
19. Judge Kenneth Hale, Haltom City Municipal Judge,
Fort Worth Star-Telegram "Editorial", May 15, 1996.
20. Texas Speaker of the House:
"Dear Sirs:
In light of the Jim Maddox AG Opinion JM-107
(Dec. 29, 1983), that "punishment" is NOT
the "same" as "enforcement". And, in asmuch
as the purpose of HB 363 is to "remedy" the
"jailing" of women & children for "only" Class
C misdemeanors, , it seems to me, a "non-attorney" and
"private citizen", that from reading AG Opinion # JM-107,
that Mr. Maddox clearly meant that "imprisonment" was
"enforcement" and "not" at all "punishment". Therefore,
might it be better to add the "phrase" : "...for a
misdemeanor offense 'punishable' OR 'enforced' under
Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code, or for an
offense 'punishable' OR 'enforced' under Section 49.03,
Penal Code, on or after September 1, 2001."
to: "SECTION 3. (a) and (b)"
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerly,
Michael Lynn Mincy
5425 Mallory Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76117
817 834 6744
mmincy@aol.com
mmincy@juno.com
[ 7:59am cdt 4/25/2001 ]
Thank You.
Your message was sent to the Office of the
Texas Speaker of the House.
[ 8:04am cdt 4/25/2001 ]"
(
geocities.com/SouthBeach)