Thursday, May 1, 2008

THE MENTAL ILLNESS OF POWER - THE CASE OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MEDINA

Several months ago Associate Justice Medina of the Texas Supreme Court, and his wife were indicted for charges related to the arson of their home. A corrupt DA immediately dismissed all of the charges. At the point of dismissing the charges the DA had already been forced from office and his leaving office was a mere formality.

Yesterday Associate Justice Medina’s wife was indicted again. My sources are telling me they fully expect the grand jury to eventually reindict Associate Justice Medina. What raised the eyebrows of the investigators is, Medina was behind on his mortgage payments at the time of the fire. In fact he was behind on all of his bills. His defense claims that the arson made no sense because they did not have homeowners insurance on the home. They were in financial ruin. My theory is, if the wife is guilty, she did not know about the lack of homeowners insurance on the home at the time of the arson. The grand jury originally indicted Associate Justice Medina for allegedly covering up the acts of his wife.

Here is the power question. Before accepting his first judicial appointment Medina had a well paying job which afforded him the life style he was living. He then accepted a judicial appointment with a major pay cut. How did he not know he would not be able to afford his mortgage payments and all of his other bills? This goes to his judgment, or clouded judgment.

There was something more important to Associate Justice Medina than money - it was false power.

Before accepting the job as an associate justice with the Texas Supreme Court, Medina was already heading for financial ruin because of the pay cut he took for his initial judicial appointment. So my question is, why would someone in total financial ruin continue down a path of financial ruin when with a simple phone call they can secure a job which earns more than enough to pay their bills? Answer - the mental illness of power.

Not everyone who seeks public office suffers from the mental illness of power - just those who will do injury to themselves to get that power. In the current election - think about this when deciding for whom you will vote. I am not voting.

4 comments:

Mas Triste said...

BW,

This case is not winnable.

Internally and then externally, the DA pushed it to the Grand Jury, buit it is exceedingly weak.

K

BobbyWC said...

Going for a second indictment after the original DA dismissed is very unusual - they must have something.

The bigger point of the piece was - how Medina for power put himself in a position of financial ruin - indictment aside.

Had he always chosen to live a simply life and chosen to be a judge I would not have a problem with him - it is how he was so desperate for power that he destroyed himself financially - smarts would have said to sell the house and downsize to something affordable - but no - somehow he thought he would not have to pay his bills

Mas Triste said...

BW,

I don't know his background, but I know the media in Houston is posted outside the acting DA's offic waiting to see what they are going to do.

Besides, you know better than I that geeting indicted is not that difficult.

I think Mr. DeGuerin will hav more to say in court.

K

BobbyWC said...

I think the only people who can decide if this case is winnable are people with actual knowledge of the evidence. I have neither read nor seen the actual evidence which leads the grand jury to believe that the wife did it.

The lack of homeowners insurance is certainly a good defense. My point about the mental illness is further supported by the fact he did not have homeowners insurance on the house.

I know all too well a DA can get just about any result in a case he wants. I will never forget in a case I represented the family of the victim and the DA said to the grand jury multiple confessions of murder is not sufficient evidence to indict.

The new Republican DA did not have to take the case back to the grand jury. It is not going to help his standing among Republicans. This is an issue in the case.

My entire point was the need for power - the merits of the criminal case is somewhat meaningless to my point - it was the financial hardship part which was important.

As I do not know the evidence they claim supports the idea the wife is responsible I cannot predict the outcome of the case.