Texas AG Ken Paxton Fled Home To Escape Subpoena...

[Norbert]

Texas AG Ken Paxton Fled Home to Escape Subpoena in Abortion Rights Case, Court Filing Shows

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his home along with his wife Monday in an attempt to evade a subpoena in an abortion rights case that was set for hearing in a federal court on Tuesday, the Texas Tribune first reported.

Ernesto Martin Herrera, the person who arrived to serve the documents, said he was first met at the door by a woman who identified herself as Angela Paxton—Paxton’s wife—while the attorney general turned around and went back inside after seeing him, according to a Texas federal court filing.

Herrera informed the woman he had come to deliver important legal documents but was told that Paxton was on the phone and in a hurry to leave somewhere.

After waiting for more than an hour on the street in front of the residence, Herrera saw Paxton exiting his garage and approached him by calling his name, following which Paxton “turned around and RAN back inside the house.”

Sometime later, Paxton’s wife Angela emerged from the house and started their truck while leaving a passenger door open after which Paxton “RAN from the door inside the garage” and entered the truck through the open door, Herrera said in the filing.

Paxton allegedly ignored Herrera’s attempts to serve him the subpoena, following which Herrera left the document on the ground near the truck.

Paxton’s truck left the residence while the documents remained on the ground...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-ag-ken-paxton-fled-home-to-escape-subpoena-in-abortion-rights-case-court-filing-shows/ar-AA12hKJb

[FBaggins]

1. Someone tried to serve papers on a Monday for a court hearing on Tuesday?

If the case was filed over a month ago, why didn't they subpoena him through certified mail weeks ago and/or to his attorney?

[Roy Rolling]

2. Maybe they did?

The article doesn’t say, but his excuse he was “protecting his family’s safety” by running to the open door of his wife’s car is an obvious lie.

The top law enforcement official in the state of Texas expects reasonable people to believe the load of shit he is shoveling. What fucking planet do these people live on? Paxton was ducking his legal responsibility to appear in court.

But, yeah, MAGAts, worship the top law enforcement official who hides from the very laws he swore to uphold.

[FBaggins]

3. All correct except the "legal responsibility to appear in court"

You don't have such a responsibility unless you're served and waiting for such service until the day before a hearing is poor representation of whoever was bringing the suit. There are plenty of options that can't be ducked if you don't put yourself in this position. Just as reasonable people won't believe his story... they won't believe that the plaintiffs just realized yesterday that they needed the AG's testimony.

It's almost as though they preferred this story to his actual testimony.

[Trueblue Texan]

6. He doesn't "expect" anyone to believe he was protecting his family...

...He just doesn't care what anyone thinks. He's going to do what he wants to do, and the law and the people of Texas be damned. He's a Rethug! He don't gotta worry 'bout no laws!

[NJCher]

10. First, he is named in the suit

Look at the name of the suit: it has his name on it. If you’re named in a suit you have to respond to that suit and if you don’t, then you had better hire an attorney to represent you.

Also, in reading about this suit, one can see that it might cause a judge to clearly define what kind of club Mr. Paxton can carry as he bullies women over their healthcare. It certainly appears this suit could open doors to testimony that might embarrass Paxton and his fellow bullies.

In regard to why the process server showed up this late, I will conjecture that Paxton did not respond to the Court with an answer in the form of a legal defense citing case law that allows him to continue doing what he’s been doing. He would be required to do this but I have seen situations where the state attorney general’s office does not do this until very late, right up to deadline. Sometimes they even farm out the work to another attorney who might or might not know what he’s doing.

It then became apparent to the Plaintiffs that this highly questionable character Paxton was not going to show in court, thus kicking the can down the road another 30 days and allowing him and his fellow bullies more time to threaten women. It would also keep testimony regarding his threatening ways from coming out.

The Plaintiffs sent the server in a last minute attempt to make it clear to the judge that Paxton had no excuse for not appearing in court.

This story will make it clear to the judge that Paxton is playing games.

Paxton is actually pulling a Trump because he has no defense.

[FBaggins]

15. This assumes facts that are not only not in evidence... they are not reasonable

Yes - he's named in the suit. A suit that has a hearing scheduled for today and which was publicly reported over a month ago.

That means he has already been served and is represented at the hearing (but doesn't have to be there himself). There's no way to conjecture that he never responded to the court because that would have very different results.

It's the demand for him to testify today that is new. And I can't see an excuse for this kind of service one day prior to the need for testimony unless the plaintiff was hoping for this kind of outcome. Would he have dodged a sheriff? He couldn't have dodged certified mail.

Far more likely that plaintiffs wanted something damaging in the news in time for the November election and wanted him to testify under oath... but knew that they probably couldn't force it in the time remaining. So they settle for this story (which still makes him look bad).

[NJCher]

19. not sure what you mean

since you have a double negative in your subject line, but I'll guess....

I stated that what I was theorizing was conjecture, mostly based on the fact that he was being served. That's what's important here because it makes it very clear that his presence is required.

In a lawsuit, that's a checklist item. It is highly unlikely this would be overlooked.

Furthermore, if it were overlooked, why isn't Paxton in front of the media right now, claiming that it was improper service? And that they are the fools, not he.

Re your certified mail comments: Every state's requirement for service is different. Some places have a sheriff deliver the papers and you have to pay a fee plus mileage. Some places allow certified mail. Some use process servers.

With all due respect because you have made some very interesting legal points in the past, I have to say I think your scenario is implausible for the following reasons:

--The people bringing this suit are sincere, and one can tell that by reading the linked stories from the story cited in the OP. They need relief. They are not playing games and quite frankly, the PR stunt you're alleging is very iffy. How would they even know Paxton would do something stupid like run away from a process server? That's what made the news. Otherwise this is nothing but a story about a process server. Nothing newsworthy about that. Women's health clinics don't have money to burn on iffy PR stunts, and a process server has to cost at least $50 plus mileage.

--People who run these kinds of health services for women are not knowledgeable about how to stage such a stunt that you allege. Nope, nope, nopity nope.

On this point:

There's no way to conjecture that he never responded to the court because that would have very different results.

What would have happened is the judge would have given him the benefit of the doubt and set another court date. What is my conjecture is his motive: He is playing for time, making up for a sloppy performance in his job. The process server makes it perfectly clear to the judge that Paxton is playing games.

And judges know these things. I assure you that this is not the first sloppy performance by this attorney general.

I have even seen county attorneys and district attorneys get dressed in court. Yes, put on their suit coat and tie right there in court. Tie their shoes.

I assume no professionalism whatsoever from Mr. Paxton.

Finally, I would point out to you that in my scenario, Paxton is afraid of being caught being a bully toward women. He has a record for this sort of thing: he has unilaterally tried to bully in voting/election cases but was slapped down the the TX SC.

If you know court procedure, that state AGs are not necessarily professional or even vaguely competent, and that women's health service providers are not the Roger Stones of medicine, then it's not hard to draw or understand my conclusion.

[FBaggins]

21. No double negative there

They are both not in evidence and they are not reasonable assumptions drawn from the facts we do have.

mostly based on the fact that he was being served.

Right. But he wasn't being served with notice of the lawsuit. That had to happen several weeks ago. There wouldn't be a hearing scheduled for today nor would there have been reporting of the lawsuit over a month ago if there had not already been service on opposing parties (presumably to attorneys of record at the AGs office). That is indeed a "checklist item" that has obviously already occurred (as evidenced by the fact that there's a hearing today in the case).

But calling someone to provide testimony is a separate act. There's nothing about a lawsuit to enjoin the state AG from some action that requires the AG to show up in court and testify. That was clearly a new ask... and one that I would expect the AG to attempt to quash at this point anyway (or at least ask the court to reschedule if he was first informed about it yesterday).

There is absolutely something to be read into a decision to call him to testify and yet only try this method of service on the day prior to the hearing. It doesn't make sense unless it was intentional.

Re your certified mail comments: Every state's requirement for service is different. Some places have a sheriff deliver the papers and you have to pay a fee plus mileage. Some places allow certified mail. Some use process servers.

I'm well aware (as no doubt are the attorneys involved) and both are permitted in TX.

Otherwise this is nothing but a story about a process server. Nothing newsworthy about that.

There is, in fact, nothing noteworthy about it.

Women's health clinics don't have money to burn on iffy PR stunts, and a process server has to cost at least $50 plus mileage.

Oh please. $50 is the cheapest possible way to get the story into the news. If the AG accepts service then you get a news story that he's asking the court to not make him testify. If he dodges service than you get that story. And they easily raise more than $50 off of either story.

What would have happened is the judge would have given him the benefit of the doubt and set another court date.

Again - you're confusing the service of the lawsuit itself (which has obviously occurred) with this new attempt at service for personal testimony. They aren't the same thing.

[NJCher]

23. this would not even occur to clinic managers (publicity stunt)

They don't think like that. Their mind is on their patients and staying out of expensive lawsuits with the State of Texas.

And this is a double negative:

This assumes facts that are not only not in evidence... they are not reasonable.

If you can phrase in the positive, you wil increase understandability by 35%. Just a fact of writing. You could also say unreasonable instead of repeating not for the third time in proximity to two other nots.

Here ya' go: read up on double negatives: https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/double-negative

I apologize in advance if I sound condescending. I am not criticizing your line of thought with your confusing writing issues.

I understand what you're saying. I am not confusing the service issues. You should have understood that: clue-"checklist."

What you don't understand is how wholly unprofessional these types like Paxton can be. I know because I've been there and because I associate with well known attorneys who know this is a fact of life. It is pitiful that this is what the taxpayers get.

The public got a taste of the shoddy work they do with Aileen Cannon.

However: we shall see who is correct as this lawsuit plays out. The truth will come out about whether my conjecturing is on target if we find out that Paxton has been overly aggressive in bullying these clinics.

[FBaggins]

25. But it would to their attorneys

And this is a double negative:

Your grammar needs some assistance. It isn't a double negative just because the word "not" occurs multiple times.

The construction is "not only A but also B" where both A and B are things that are not true. That isn't a double negative. If I say that you aren't Disney princess Merida as:

"Not only are you not short and not a redhead, you are also not a princess and not animated" I have not created a quintuple negative.


What you don't understand is how wholly unprofessional these types like Paxton can be.

I have no doubt that this one can be. But the opposing attorneys made it easy with their sloppy work. If you really need a government official's testimony (who is party to the lawsuit)... you don't do it one day before the requested testimony by trying to get him to physically accept service. As was implied in an earlier response below... they were before the court last Thursday. They could have asked the judge right then. Or they could have sent the subpoena weeks ago.

The problem is that they wouldn't have gotten it and there wouldn't have been a story. This way they can get something into the press.

One other note - this doesn't appear to be a lawsuit brought by clinics and their employees. It's groups that financially support women who need to go out of state for abortion services.

[Roy Rolling]

34. Discussion Noted

It will be marked as DU precedent by our legal scholars. Want a legal discussion? Watch MSNBC attorney contributors and DU contributors like the above. 👏👏👏🏆🏆

[csziggy]

18. According to the court docket, Thursday Sept. 22 Paxton had an attorney in court for him

I suspect that day or the day after (since the summons was dated the 23rd) the judge ordered that Paxton himself had to appear at the hearing already scheduled for the 26th.

On the 26th a long list of Certificate of Service(s) were filed with the courts for a list of various people including Paxton: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64914430/fund-texas-choice-v-paxton/

[NJCher]

20. re your second paragraph

that speaks to my guess that Paxton has been overly aggressive in bullying women. Look at the stories! Look at the witnesses! They even had to ask for extra pages!

Thanks for looking that up. It supplies much helpful information. First, the judge attended some Christian college but he was appointed by Obama.

Second, that Paxton tried to dodge an appearance by using an attorney but the judge is wise to him.

[FBaggins]

24. Your suspicion can't really be correct

If the judge had ordered Paxton's appearance during the hearing on the 22nd, then there would be no need for service at all. Indeed, subpoenas/summons in federal civil suits are normally for non-party witnesses. Paxton is party to the lawsuit.

Note that the subpoena is something created by the opposing party and signed by the clerk of the court (not the judge). The judge weighs in after service if the person served asks to quash or alter the subpoena. The fact that it was only requested after the hearing with the judge and with a single working day between that and the date for testimony makes it highly likely that the attorney did not expect it actually to result in testimony today. Anything prior to the 23rd would have been dealt with in court on the 22nd.

[NJCher]

29. this tells me

Anything prior to the 23rd would have been dealt with in court on the 22nd.

OMD, you have no idea how these court hearings go. No idea. Zip, zilch, zero.

You are caught up in the world of theory and there is a big, big difference in how courts operate and what we see on paper.

As far as the double negative goes, with getting into your example sentence we are dealing with parallels, which are sometimes done for emphasis.

You, my friend, have a double negative whether you want to own up to it or not.

In any event, professional writers stay in the positive. C'mon, you can do it. You just have to think a little bit.

With that, I am going to discontinue my communication with you on this issue because I have an herb garden to finish.

[FBaggins]

30. You've exhibited neither an understanding of court processes nor that of the grammar you nitpick

See what I did there? Still not a double negative.

you have no idea how these court hearings go. No idea. Zip, zilch, zero.

Goodness. Is that a quadruple negative? Certainly doesn't seem very positive... I guess you're not a professional writer.

As for how "these court hearings go", I'd encourage you to actually read though the source that csziggy provided. Note that we have a very friendly judge (who has already ruled against TX's law before being overturned at the appellate level) and a friendly "defendant" in Jose Garza who has "stipulated" much of what plaintiffs want the court to accept. Yet the court has already ruled against their request for a TRO twice because (wait for it) they can't get their act together when serving notice to opposing parties. Now they wait until the day before a hearing to try to serve someone who is party to the suit and you just assume that they must know their business?

[FBaggins]

33. In other news

OMD, you have no idea how these court hearings go. No idea. Zip, zilch, zero.

And yet the judge did exactly as I predicted... quashing the subpoenas and saying that the AG didn't need to testify. (And this is no MAGA judge)

I'm sure it was just dumb luck.

[Old Crank]

4. Hey Paxton! Just Comply

You look like a filthy criminal running from the law.

[lindysalsagal]

5. This is Texas' idea of an attorney general??? Is this Borowitz?

Are there any honest people in texas?

[MagickMuffin]

16. Yes, plenty of honest people in Texas, just not republicons

Plenty of real to goodness honest people living here.


Thx for asking.

[Phoenix61]

7. He was so worried about the safety of his family he

sent his wife out to start the truck.

[NJCher]

11. And also

To have the door open!

Hah, maybe he thinks he’s Prince Charles. “Please come in here and throw this piece of paper in the wastebasket.”

[Demnation]

8. You can run but you cannot hide. This is widely known.

[NoMoreRepugs]

9. Damn Skippy, who looks like an illegal alien running away now?

[tanyev]

12. Fleeing like a common securities fraud criminal.

[Botany]

13. Fine serve him at work

Office of the Attorney General
300 W. 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701

[ck4829]

14. K&R

Last edited Mon Oct 3, 2022, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Christian Nation

[UTUSN]

17. K&R

[Ladythatvotesblue]

22. CHICKEN!!!!!!

[Martin68]

26. The good news is that this is an admission not only of guilt, but of a failed and unconstitutional

act on his part.

[Hekate]

27. Brave Sir Milquetoast!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. Please let there be video, please let there be video, please.

Link to tweet

[Brother Buzz]

31. I have to believe any process server worth his salt...

Would be armed with a smartphone to document the event. I wonder if he's scrambling around, trying to figure out how to monetized the footage.

[LudwigPastorius]

32. Paxton is like the cheapest, cheesiest Batman villain ever.

PicassoFace!

[Roy Rolling]

35. With this Comment....

The DU legal team rests its case.😂