Chuck Rosenthal
 |
Claims to fame: Harris County, Texas, District Attorney; “family values” Republican; unsuccessful defender of anti-gay Texas sodomy law; husband; father of three; emotional adulterer; racist good ol’ boy
Moral apex: We can’t sum it up in a single paragraph any better than 365gay.com did, on January 17, 2008:
The district attorney who defended the Texas law criminalizing homosexuality before the US Supreme Court is desperately trying to keep his job following the discovery of e-mails containing sexually explicit videos, racist jokes and what is described as torrid love notes to his executive secretary.
It all started with a 2004 police-brutality case against the county, Christine Dobbyn of KTRK-TV Eyewitness News explained in late December, 2007…
…filed by two brothers. Rosenthal was called to give a deposition. Emails were subpoenaed as part of the case. The contents of those emails have been somewhat a diversion to the original case.“It was never our intent, never our goal to embarrass anyone like that,” said plaintiff attorney David Tang.
Among the correspondence from the county DA’s email address are exchanges between Rosenthal and his executive secretary, Kerry Stevens.
In a three-day period in July of [2007], Rosenthal wrote to Stevens’ home email saying, “You saw me looking at new toys yesterday. I could buy one or save the money to take you somewhere.”
In another brief email, he says, “Bet I could make you sleep.”
And on the Fourth of July, he writes to her, “I love you so much.”
Eyewitness News obtained copies of the emails after the records were unsealed … [and then] … U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt ordered the hundreds of pages of emails be sealed back up.
Allegations have been made that the request and release of the emails are part of a political plot. …
Over the first few days of 2008, Rosenthal refused to withdraw his re-election bid (his current term ends in ‘08), then did drop out, then thought about re-entering the race, then decided against it. (With us so far?)
All along, both friends (including Texas Republican Party officials) and foes of Rosenthal’s have been urging — nay, demanding — he resign, which, as of this writing (January 23, 2008), he refuses to do.
Now, all this just adds up to bad behavior, right? Nothing in Rosenthal’s actions could be construed as remotely criminal, right? (After all, as he himself said, arguing against Lawrence v. Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: “adultery is not penalized in Texas,” even though “it is certainly not condoned in Texas.”)
Right… kinda. Cheating on your wife and sending lovey-dovey mash notes (and racist jokes) to your secretary isn’t criminal — but refusing to obey a court order certainly is:
“The rule of law,” Jeremy Desel of KHOU reminds us…
…is the same, no matter which courthouse you are in. In federal court, that rule comes from the judge.
. . .
Attorney Lloyd Kelley contends that [Churck Rosenthal] did indeed ignore a judge’s order to turn over documents and e-mails.
The problem for Rosenthal is that Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt says in his order calling for a contempt hearing, “There appears to be merit in the motion.”
Merit in a series of filings from Kelley, suggesting that Rosenthal knowingly deleted e-mails from his computer, days after the same e-mails were ordered to be turned over to the court.
Essentially the accusations are that Rosenthal destroyed evidence.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
As KHOU’s Gerald Treece, put it: “If you are destroying evidence, you have now moved from the three-foot end of the pool to the deep end of the pool real quickly.”
How deep into the deep end of the pool, we don’t know yet — but we’ll keep you posted.
Why do you call him an “emotional adulterer”? Because we don’t know for sure if he’s actually, physically been shagging his secretary, Kerry Stevens. One news outlet, however, does imply that Rosenthal was putting something else besides email in Stevens’ inbox, calling the situation “Rosenthal’s extra-marital affair” (also noting that Stevens pulls in an astounding $70,000 a year, and drives a county car).
Anything else? Yeah, plenty. Get a load of this story, which is every bit as interesting as any old sex scandal:
So, there’s this Texas Supreme Court justice by the name of David Medina, appointed by Republican Governor Rick Perry, a.k.a. “Governor Goodhair” (who is definitely not gay, no matter what anybody says, and no matter how “many, many times” the Austin Chronicle has heard The Rumor) in 2004, who— well, here, we’ll let Miguel Bustillo of the Los Angeles Times tell the story:
The day after a grand jury indicted a politically connected Texas Supreme Court justice on arson-related charges, the district attorney had the case dismissed, arguing there was insufficient evidence.The unusual action outraged some members of the grand jury, who called it an example of politics trumping justice.
The district attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, and the justice, David Medina, are Republicans. Medina — whose home was destroyed in a June blaze the local fire marshal deemed suspicious — was formerly general counsel to Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican.
. . .
After a judge dismissed the charges against Medina on Friday, Assistant District Attorney Vic Wisner said prosecutors would keep investigating the fire but did not feel charges were warranted.
Medina, 49, has maintained his innocence since fire marshals announced in October that the fire was being treated as a possible arson. A dog working with investigators had detected an accelerant at the scene. Officials also learned the Medinas had been having financial problems, including a possible foreclosure.
Medina’s wife, Francesca, was charged with setting the fire. He was charged with fabricating a letter he turned over to investigators as evidence.
The jurors’ outspokenness prompted his lawyer, Terry Yates, to tell a judge they should be held in contempt for breaking the law intended to keep grand jury proceedings secret. If found guilty, the two could serve up to 30 days in jail.
Now, whatcha think is really going on there? We think dirty-’n'-racist emails aren’t going to be Rosenthal’s biggest problem in this life, that’s what we think. Can you say “cronyism“?
We also think it says a lot about Rosenthal as a man.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Republican “moral values” crusaders who condemn, and demonize, those of us unbound by archaic mores and free to be who our god, or simply nature, meant us to be, it’s that they think, by some special dispensation, they’re above the law — be it man’s law, or God’s law.
Isn’t it fascinating that Chuck himself, on the welcome page of the official Web site of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, wrote this:
We expect not only competence but also professionalism and an absolute commitment to the ends of securing justice without regard to status, race, gender, or national origin, or the prominence of either the victims of crime or those charged with crimes.
“Status, race, gender, or national origin,” we understand. But what’s the phrase “prominence of either the victims of crime or those charged with crimes” doing there?
Attorney and Houston City Council member Jolanda ‘Jo’ Jones provides the answer:
Those who work at the Harris County Courthouse every day have seen … a pattern of bias against minorities and the poor. When the defendant is African-American or Hispanic, Rosenthal’s attorneys strike most, if not all, blacks and Hispanics off the jury.. . .
Many of my colleagues and I have observed that Rosenthal’s prosecutors routinely request and receive harsher punishments for minorities and the poor than they do for others who are charged with like behavior.
Take, for example, the gang of four middle- and upper-class teen-age girls, all from Kingwood, who called themselves the “Queens of Armed Robbery.” They robbed store clerks because they were bored and wanted money to buy cigarettes and beer.
The most severe punishment doled out was seven years in prison, while the sweetest deal was boot camp for one of the robbers where the judge attended the graduation. Imagine that.
Then there was the unheard and untold story of a young black boy, an honor roll student who was either 16 or 17 at the time he committed robbery, and who was sentenced … [to] Thirty-five years.
I am not condoning robbery of any kind, but the disparity in punishment is appalling.
Then there’s the case of Farrah Fawcett’s son. …
. . .
This inequality is not new, and I am not the first to call attention to it. But I do know what I’m talking about. In 2002, I helped organize the peaceful protest of the criminal courts building that stated then what people are finding out now: Justice for minorities and the poor is fleeting at best and nonexistent at worst.
. . .
Even today, many defense attorneys will tell you that the “scientists” who routinely testify for Rosenthal’s office almost always run tests to support his office’s theory of the case, regardless of truth. They test to convict; not to seek the truth. (See the case of poor Josiah Sutton and others like him.)
(Yes, do see “the case of poor Josiah Sutton” — particularly here, and here.)
Where everything stands today (January 23, 2008): A hearing, scheduled for January 31, 2008…
…to determine if Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal should be held in contempt for deleting e-mails that had been subpoenaed in connection with a civil rights lawsuit is shaping up to offer an all-star cast of witnesses, court papers show.The hearing, which will take place Jan 31 in U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt’s court, was sought by Lloyd Kelley, the attorney representing two brothers suing Harris County for wrongful arrest. Kelley filed a motion for sanctions against Rosenthal, alleging the district attorney deleted more than 2,500 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed and ordered produced by the court.
In court papers filed Monday, Kelley gave a list of people he plans to call to the witness stand, including Rosenthal; prosecutor and Republican DA candidate Kelly Siegler; Siegler’s husband, Dr. Sam Siegler; Rosenthal’s executive assistant Kerry Stevens; his chief investigator John Ray Harrison; his political consultant Allen Blakemore; and prosecutor Mike Trent.
Kelly Siegler had informed Rosenthal’s employees that the e-mails were improper and “possibly illegal,” Kelley said, while Siegler’s husband exchanged “racy” and off-color e-mails with Rosenthal.
. . .
Blakemore may be asked to testify on the use of county computers for election campaign purposes…
Kelley also intends to summon as witnesses Sheriff Tommy Thomas, County Judge Ed Emmett, County Attorney Mike Stafford and Rosenthal’s attorney, Ron Lewis.
Kelley said he hopes the Jan. 31 hearing will explore when and why Rosenthal deleted the e-mails; which e-mails were deleted; whether Rosenthal committed perjury about the e-mails; whether Rosenthal and his employees engaged in “illegal or unethical behavior” that motivated them to not comply with the court’s order — and what capabilities they had of recovering the deleted e-mails.
. . .
Lewis, in court papers, also said he intends to explore whether Kelley knowingly made confidential information in Rosenthal’s e-mails public in violation of a Nov. 20, 2007 protective order. Lewis said he will call KHOU-TV reporter Jeremy Rogalski as a witness to testify whether he received “confidential documents” from Kelley on or about Jan. 8.
Rogalski broke the story on Jan. 8 that Rosenthal’s e-mails contained potentially racist and sexist content and sexually explicit bloopers.
— Peggy O’Hare
Lawyer seeks to question Rosenthal’s inner circle
Houston Chronicle
January 22, 2008
Fun fact: While arguing against Lawrence v. Texas, Rosenthal displayed astounding ignorance — not only about the nature of homosexuality, but about the law itself:
• When asked by one of the justices if same-sex adoption was legal in Texas, Rosenthal didn’t know the answer.
• When asked if he was certain that gay people “can’t procreate children,” Rosenthal answered: “We are sure that they — that they can’t do that.” (That’s going to come as a surprise to the untold numbers of lesbians and gay men who have their own biological kids.)
• After explaining that the same sexual conduct prohibited between homosexuals was not prohibited between heterosexuals, Rosenthal opined that “deviant sexual intercourse with heterosexuals” could “also lead to marriage and to procreation.” Last time we checked, oral and anal sex (specific sexual conduct prohibited between homosexuals — but not heterosexuals — under Texas law, pre-Lawrence) never led to procreation. (The justice’s response: “But procreation… many people with the blessings of Texas can have sexual relations who are unable to procreate, so… it certainly isn’t true that sexual relations are for the purpose of procreation and anything that is not for that purpose is beyond the pale. You can’t make that distinction.”)
Memorable quotes:
First of all, let me say that consent may be alleged in this case, but consent is not proven in the record in this case. There’s — there is nothing in the record that shows that people are capable of giving consent was, in fact, given, but even given that, I — I think that the — that this Court having determined that there are certain kinds of conduct that it will accept and certain kinds of conduct it will not accept may draw the line at the bedroom door of the heterosexual married couple because of the interest that this Court has that this Nation has and certainly that the State of Texas has for the preservation of marriage, families and the procreation of children.. . .
Even if you infer that various States acting through their legislative process have repealed sodomy laws, there is no protected right to engage in extrasexual — extramarital sexual relations, again, that can trace their roots to history or the traditions of this nation.
. . .
I think what — what I’m saying is — and I had not gotten into the equal protection argument, Texas has the right to set moral standards and can set bright line moral standards for its people. And in the setting of those moral standards, I believe that they can say that certain kinds of activity can exist and certain kinds of activity cannot exist.
— Charles A. Rosenthal
Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court
against Lawrence v. Texas
March 26, 2003
Recently some Harris County District Attorney inner office e-mails have been released in the media. I understand that I have said some things that have caused pain and difficulty for my family, my coworkers and friends. I deeply regret having said those things. Moreover, I am sorry for the problems I have caused anyone. I also understand that sometimes things happen for a purpose. This event has served as a wake-up call to me to get my house in order both literally and figuratively.
— Chuck Rosenthal
Statement to the press
December 28, 2007
Memorable observations:
Rosenthal probably won’t resign — I don’t have much faith in him. But he should be prosecuted with the same compassion and justice with which he prosecuted the minorities and the poor who have come before his office.— Jolanda ‘Jo’ Jones
Houston City Council member
Case against Rosenthal couldn’t be more convincing
Houston Chronicle
January 19, 2008
Rosenthal’s response filed on December 18, 2003 at 1900 hours truly takes the cake. Rosenthal stops just short of insisting his conduct warrants a medal.
— Opening lines under “Factual Background”
Erik Adam Ibarra, et al. v. Harris County, et al.
(Plaintiffs’ Response to Rosenthal Opposed Motion for Protection … and Motion to With-hold E-Mails and Supplementation to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Sanctions and Contempt)
December 18, 2007
Much of my focus has been the education and training of the staff here…
Biography
Re-Elect Chuck Rosenthal for Harris County District Attorney Web site
Suggested Bible reading for Mr. Rosenthal:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.— Matthew 5:28
