Issue No. 89
October 3, 2018
In this issue....

  • Where Did the Money Republican Judges Paid to Hotze's Hate Group Actually Go?
Real Journalists Should Investigate How Republican Judges Are Funneling Money to Hotze's Hate Group

I am a full-time lawyer and only a part-time journalist. I suggest again that real news organizations need to look into the facts and questions uncovered in my story below about how Harris County Republican judges are giving money to a politically powerful and hateful bigot, Steven Hotze, and his partner in anti-LGBT insanity, Jared Woodfill. There have been news stories and blog posts about Hotze's oversize and malignant influence on local GOP politics. But, no journalist has so far delved deeply into how money flows between Hotze's various PAC's, how his influential slate mailer is paid for and where payments from judges to Hotze actually go. My long article below attempts to unravel and explain the tangled financial web of hate involving Hotze, Woodfill and most of the Republican judges in Harris County.

My story published yesterday explained what a dangerous, mean bigot Hotze is and how even many Republicans are disgusted by his toxic influence on local politics. To be fair to Hotze, I sent him via e-mail an advance copy of yesterday's story and asked him to let me know if he wanted to suggest any corrections or point out any inaccuracies. I even offered to publish any reply he wanted to share. Hotze did not respond.

I will print verbatim in my next issue any response Woodfill or any of the judges want to provide to this issue of my newsletter. I have tried my best to be accurate and provide opinions with a reasonable basis that I feel most lawyers would agree with.
I may not win every case (even if in my heart I expect to). I just want an efficient system in which my client gets a fair hearing before a judge who works hard, knows the law, and does not play favorites. I also expect judges to appoint qualified amicus attorneys who zealously look after children (and who actually personally visit their minor clients in their homes). Is that asking too much? Stay tuned.
Greg Enos
The Enos Law Firm

The Enos Law Firm
  17207 Feather Craft Lane, Webster, Texas 77598
 (281) 333-3030

   Please forward this e-mail newsletter to everyone who cares about our family courts! 
Want to join the mailing list?
Just send your email address by text message
Text the code: THEMONGOOSE to 22828 to get started
Where Did the Money Republican Judges Paid to Hotze's Hate Group Actually Go?
For years, Harris County Republican candidates have sought the endorsement of Steven Hotze so that they could be included in mass mailers sent out to loyal GOP voters by Hotze's Conservative Republicans of Texas and Conservative Republicans of Harris County. Five of our Republican family court judges paid money to Hotze's group in February or early March 2018 even though they were not opposed in the GOP primaries this year. I have spent hours reviewing campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission by judges, candidates and Hotze’s Political Action Committees (PAC’s). This article summarizes what I have discovered.

This is the mailer sent out by Hotze’s PAC for the 2018 Republican primary election in Harris County. Note that it places an asterisk by those Republican candidates Hotze thinks support “the homosexual agenda.”
Hotze has expanded his operation to outlying counties, so his mailer for Galveston County looked a little different:
Hotze’s mailers are incredibly influential. Republican voters bring them into the voting places and candidates endorsed by Hotze win the GOP primary over 90% of the time. Hotze's Conservative Republicans of Texas has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Totally aside from the ethics and morality of a judge supporting Hotze's hate group, there are serious questions about how and why the judges are funneling their campaign money to Hotze's entities.

Click here to visit the website for Conservative Republicans of Texas.

Click here to go to the website of the Conservative Republicans of Harris County.

Hotze’s two PAC’s are very interconnected and they both use the same mailing address. If you click on the “Donate” page of the Harris County PAC website you are redirected to a page on the website of the Conservative Republicans of Texas. On the website for The Conservative Republicans of Harris County, if you click on “Endorsements” you will be shown Dr. Hotze’s 2018 Republican primary endorsement mailer, which at the top says “Conservative Republicans of Harris County Sample Ballot.” This endorsement list at the bottom says “pd pol ad Conservative Republicans of Texas.”

I have analyzed the campaign finance reports of Hotze’s PAC’s and my findings are summarized on the following chart. Hotze’s two PAC’s accept donations and then the money is eventually mostly funneled to The Yates Company, operated by Jeff Yates. Yates actually designs and produces Hotze’s slate mailers. 

The mailing addresses used by Conservative Republicans of Texas, The Conservative Republicans of Harris County and The Yates Company are the same: PO Box 75190, Houston, Texas.
Texas law requires PAC’s to report all contributions and expenditures. The Texas Election Code Sec. 253.1611(b) makes it illegal for a judicial candidate to contribute at all to a PAC for a primary election. Section 253.1161(c) makes it illegal for a judicial candidate to contribute more than $500 to a PAC for a general election. None of Hotze’s PAC’s report contributions from any judges even though it is well known that Harris County Republican judges give large sums of money to Hotze each election cycle. 

Democratic judicial candidates have suggested to me that their Republican opponents were violating the law by contributing to Hotze’s PAC’s. I researched this issue and e-mailed judges, Jared Woodfill and Hotze.  I concluded that the Republican judges were not illegally contributing to Hotze’s PAC’s . But, I have no way of knowing what happened with the judges’ money once the company owned by Hotze, Woodfill and others deposited the judges' checks. 

However, what I did manage to find out about where the judges’ payments go is almost as concerning as Class C misdemeanor violations of the Election Code.

Five Harris County family court judges (and dozens of other Republican judges in Harris County) reported payments of $5,000 or $10,000 payable to Conservative Republicans of Texas or to “CRTX News.” "CRTX" stands for Conservative Republicans of Texas.
These payments were made at a time when the primary filing deadline had passed and each of these five judges knew they were unopposed in the Republican primary but would have a Democratic opponent in the Fall. Incumbent Republican Judges Farr, Millard and Franklin-York and GOP nominee Melanie Flowers did not report any expenditures to Hotze’s groups. Yet, they were all endorsed by Hotze.

My inquiry focused on two main questions: (1) Who did the judges send their contributions or payments to? and (2) Why did the judges make these payments?

As a result of my inquiries last week, Judge Dean realized her campaign report was in error. Dean told me that she did not give to the "Conservative Republicans of Texas" (a PAC) as her campaign finance report clearly said, but rather to “CRTX News.”
Judge Dean e-mailed me:

Upon review, I found that I made the check payable to CRTX which is CRTX news. I personally have reviewed the check to verify who the check was written to. The Check No is 456.  My report has been amended to reflect the correct information.

Judge Roy Moore sent me a copy of the check he wrote which shows it is payable to “CRTX.” "CRTX" stands for Conservative Republicans of Texas, a PAC. Moore’s campaign finance report says his payment was to “Conservative Republicans of Texas News.” I asked for a copy of the back of the check so I could see how it was endorsed and deposited but Moore was not able to get that to me.

I repeatedly e-mailed the judges and asked for confirmation of who their checks were payable to and eventually they all said, “CRTX News.” I asked for confirmation that CRTX News was a separate company and not just an activity of the Conservative Republicans of Texas PAC. One e-mail I sent the judges said:

If there is no separate business but CRTX News is just a name used by the PAC for its publication, this is indeed a problem. I would assume Hotze or Yates or Woodfill could easily and quickly provide me the documentation on this separate entity that is so hard to find any record of. It is in your interest and that of the other judges for this to be documented. Remember, my starting thesis is that you judges have done nothing wrong legally or ethically. The more I dig, the more I begin to worry about my original assumption. Someone just needs to get me the proof that there is such an entity.
Finally, on the Friday afternoon before I planned to complete this story over the weekend, one of the judges got the information from Hotze and e-mailed me to say:

Here is what I have gathered:

1) CRTX is a dba for Deus Audecas Iuvat, Inc. Several Republican candidates used campaign expenditures to do political advertising in CRTX News this year.

2) All funds payable to CRTX News are deposited into a separate account and are never co-mingled with any PAC funds.

3) There have been no campaign contributions from any judicial candidate to either the Conservative Republicans of Texas PAC or the Conservative Republicans of Harris County PAC (which of course would be prohibited).

4) It appears that at least one judge reported the political expenditure to CRTX News as being to "Conservative Republicans of Texas". This was merely an error in the description of the expenditure on the Campaign Finance Report (which can be amended in order to avoid any confusion). 

5) All funds from campaign expenditures have been deposited into the Deus Audecas Iuvat, Inc. dba "CRTX" account. No campaign expenditures have been deposited or transferred into either PAC account. The two entities are operated in an entirely separate manner, and there is never any commingling of funds.

As such, the campaign expenditures from all of the judges to CRTX News are entirely legal.

Actually, the name of this company is “Deus Audaces luvat, LLC ” ("LLC" not "Inc."). The Latin name of this limited liability company (LLC) is translated,“God favors the bold.” The Texas Secretary of State shows that this company was formed in January 2017 and its Managing Members are Steven Hotze, Jared Woodfill, Jeff Yates and Sam Malone. 

The addresses of all of the Managing Members are listed as PO Box 75190, the same address used by Hotze’s PAC’s and The Yates Company. 

Deus Audaces luvat, LLC has an assumed name certificate on file with the Secretary of State so it can do business as “CRTX News.” So, if the judges made their checks for Hotze payable to “CRTX News,” then the checks could be deposited into a bank account of this company. My chart on the flow of Hotze’s campaign money must be updated then to look like this:
It appears that Woodfill is a co-owner of this company. The owners of an LLC are called “members.” Woodfill is listed as a “Managing Member” of the company with the Secretary of State. In Texas, an LLC may be member-managed, where all of the members of the LLC participate in the management of the LLC, or are manager-managed, where the members surrender management duties to one or more managers. As a managing member of this company, Woodfill would be a co-owner. We do not know what percentage of the company Woodfill, Hotze or the others own.

Here are other questions I wish I could get answers to about this company Hotze and Woodfill co-own which the judges make payments to:
  1. Does the judges' money just get divided between the four owners of this company or does it actually go toward the CRTX News newsletter or other political purposes?
  2. If this mystery company shares the same address as Hotze's two PAC's and The Yates Company which produces Hotze's slate mailers, do the judges' contributions help pay for the overhead of Yates or the PAC's or contribute in any way to the mailers?

The information I did uncover caused me to ask why the judges were making these payments to this mysterious company owned by Hotze, Woodfill, Yates and Malone. 

Judge Schmude told me:

My contribution was made to “CRTX News”, which is an entirely separate entity from each PAC. It is my understanding that there is no commingling of funds between CRTX News and the PACs. CRTX News is a newsletter that reaches several hundred thousand Republican primary voters, and my contribution was specifically for political advertising for my campaign. As such, those campaign expenditures were entirely legal.

Judge Schmude did not explain why in March he needed to advertise for his campaign with hardcore Republicans when he did not have a primary opponent.

Judge Moore told me:

...the sole purpose of this contribution was for advertising. And as I did not have a primary opponent, my intent was to simply get out the Republican vote in the primary. 

If Judge Moore purchased advertisements only for his campaign, how does that get out the primary vote? Wouldn't Hotze have done that anyway?

Jared Woodfill told me:

The Judges you reference wrote checks to which is an online political newspaper that accepts advertising dollars. The candidates paid for advertising that appeared in the online publication. This was all done before the primary election via pop-up ads and will be run in again in October as pop-up ads. has not contributed to or paid for any CRT or CRHC PAC activity. None of the candidates you identified dollars were used to send the mailer

Just like I was not willing to accept Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony about what “boofing” referred to in his year book or what “the devil’s triangle” meant on his teenage calendars, I am skeptical enough to think critically about these explanations for the judges’ payments.

Hotze sends monthly electronic newsletters to his flock of right-wing Republicans who enjoy his attacks on liberals, homosexuals, the media and mostly his fellow Republicans.
Why would Republican judges who did not have primary opponents pay for “pop up” ads or any other kind of advertisements in Hotze’s electronic newsletter that is only received by rabid Republicans who would vote for the party’s nominees no matter what? 

No one has shared with me the actual advertisements these judges supposedly purchased. I will pay cash to anyone (other than a judge) who can provide me examples of advertisements on Hotze's newsletter this year for any of these five judges.

If a judge's campaign pays for advertising, that can only be for advertising for that particular judge. How does a "pop-up" ad for John Schmude in February that will only be seen by the most dedicated Republicans help him in November in a general election? Any Republican on Hotze's e-mail list is going to be bombarded with reminders to vote straight "R" regardless of what some judges pay Hotze.

Advertisements on Hotze's electronic newsletter emailed to his list of Republicans could have been run by Hotze at basically no cost in his e-mail newsletter. So, is “advertising” just a ruse to explain these payments to Hotze that were really for something else? Why would a judge who is not opposed in the primary want to spend money to boost voter turnout in the primary? Do the judges think for a second that Hotze will not do everything he can to get Republican voters to the polls next month even without money from the judges? Hotze and Woodfill will lose all of their influence and clout if there is a Democratic sweep in November.

I like and have always respected Judges Moore and Schmude and their stated reasons for paying for advertising with Hotze ten months before the general election may well be 100% accurate. If so, most political consultants would question the wisdom of spending that amount of money in that fashion so long before the general election.

On the other hand, neither Hotze or the judges want it to appear that candidates have to pay for Hotze’s endorsements. Yet, that is what many Republicans in Harris County think about Hotze’s slate endorsement operation.

Here is what Harris County Republican Precinct Chair Susan Rutherford said on Texas Business Radio on March 3, 2018 ( click here to see her full interview):

Susan Rutherford: Correct, correct. The other group of slates, we call them the Big 3 Endorsement Slates. They’re known negatively as the pay-to-play slates. They have a disproportionate influence on the primary voter because they send out these misleading vote mailers to every Republican primary voter in Harris County. I’ll show you here. There’s three of them. Here’s the first one, it’s the Conservative Republicans of Harris County or Conservative Republicans of Texas. This is produced by Steve Hotze. Then we have one called the Texas Conservative Review by Gary Polland. And then there’s the Link Letter by Terry Lowry.

Matt Register: Now these, there’s certainly nothing illegal about sending out a sample ballot or something.

Susan Rutherford: No.

Matt Register: But what is problematic, here, and I’ve heard from a lot of folks, why we brought you on, is I’ve heard from a lot of people that this is a problem in the Republican party in Harris County, Texas that these pay-to-play slates are going out. They look and almost purposely designed to look either officially from the party or look to mimic what some of these organizations that send out legitimate slates on. And this is purely a money-making opportunity for them, or maybe not purely, but it certainly is a money-making opportunity for them, right?

Susan Rutherford: Well, right. First of all, I’ll tell you how do they get their endorsements. These three, their endorsement process comes down to the personal opinion of each of these three men. There’s no review committee with rules. They’re not voting. They don’t often have interviews or questionnaires, and they also, importantly as we said, accept money. The candidate is asked to buy a costly ad, and usually when you purchase the ad, that confirms the endorsement. These pay-to-play slates have collected nearly $1 million in the last Republican primary. We’re talking a lot of money. And two of them are for profit businesses. But they also deceive the voters. They’re misleading them when they pretend to be legitimate voter guides, when in reality, they’re three men who endorse based on their personal gain and their personal vendetta.

Most Republican party activists in Harris County hate these “pay-to-play” slate endorsement rackets and none is as influential as Hotze’s.  Click here to read a December 2017 article entitled "The Curse of the Slate Mailers" by Republican Ed Hubbard.

Now that I have exposed that Jared Woodfill appears to be a co-owner of the company that the judges and other Republican candidates are paying for “advertising” to Hotze’s right wing followers, a pretty serious ethical issue needs to be addressed.

Woodfill is a lawyer and he makes a lot of money practicing family law in Harris County before the Republican judges who know darn well how influential he is with Hotze and the rabid fringe of their party. I am pretty confident that none of the judges are disclosing to Woodfill's opposing attorneys that the judges and Woodfill have a business relationship and that payments from the judges go into Woodfill's pockets.

For example, Woodfill was co-counsel in a lengthy trial in March 2018 before Judge XXX where the judge awarded Woodfill’s client a multi-million dollar award for attorney’s fees against the client’s ex-wife. This trial happened eleven days after Judge XXX made his large payment to Woodfill’s company. Neither Woodfill or Judge XXX disclosed this business relationship to the opposing lawyers. [Note: There is a gag order in this case that is almost certainly unconstitutional, especially in this context, and until recently, I briefly represented the ex-wife on her appeal and in post-judgment actions, and I did not know about this business relationship either until this past week. I am not disclosing the specifics about this case at this time because of the gag order].

Judge Charley Prine paid $5,000 to Woodfill’s company this February and it appears Woodfill was the attorney on eight cases pending in Prine’s court at that time.

Judge Schmude gave Woodfill’s company $10,000 (twice what the other judges paid) and at least six cases seem to have been pending in Schmude’s court at that time where Woodfill was a lawyer.

Judge James Lombardino gave Woodfill’s company $5,000, and it looks like Woodfill had four cases in Lombardino’s court this year. 

I did not find any Woodfill cases pending this year before Judge Dean (who paid $5,000 to the Woodfill company) and I found one Woodfill cases in Judge Moore’s court (Moore paid $5,000 to Woodfill’s company).

 I have talked to over a dozen experienced lawyers and several judges about this situation, and they all think the judges and Woodfill should disclose their business relationship to Woodfill's opposing counsel on all cases pending before the judges who paid money to Woodfill's company.

How would you like to be a mother in a child custody case where Woodfill represents your child’s father and you discover after the trial that the judge who heard your case was paying thousands of dollars to a company partly owned by Woodfill? 

While there is a specific rule of judicial ethics on business relationships with lawyers (see below), there does not seem to be a specific rule in Texas which requires judges to disclose potential conflicts.

Comment 5 to Rule 2.11 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct states:

[5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.

The ethical rules for federal judges includes such a disclosure requirement. I could not find a similar rule in Texas, but I know that most ethical judges follow this rule because it is the right thing to do. I was in a court recently and the judge realized a party to a modification case was the judge’s dry cleaner with whom the judge and family regularly did business. That judge immediately informed everyone involved with the case about their business relationship. That is what these judges should do in all cases involving Woodfill.

I am not sure that this business relationship is grounds for recusal, but it should be disclosed.

Of course, it is possible that the judges thought they were only paying Hotze and they did not know that their checks payable to "CRTX News" went to a company co-owned by Jared Woodfill. I got the strong impression that these judges did not know the name of the specific company that received their checks payable to "CRTX News" until this Friday and I suspect they did not know Woodfill was a co-owner of the business until I told them.

Did Woodfill have an ethical duty to let the judges know that? I think so if he was actively handling cases in their courts.
There is a specific ethical rule about judges having on-going business relationships with attorneys who appear before them. The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(D)(1) states:

(1) A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of the judicial duties, exploit his or her judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves .

A judge’s decision to advertise with a company owned by a lawyer or any person would involve contact and probably on-going communication. There would be work on the design and content of the ad, a discussion about rotating ads, what size, when and how often to run the ads. There would surely be a discussion of the price and what exactly the judge gets for his or her payment. Some of these judges claim they were paying for advertising that would have run from March through early November and that would be an on-going relationship. Internet ads create data and Hotze and Woodfill should be able to report to the judges on who viewed and clicked on their advertisements, which makes their relationship a truly on-going one.

A reasonable person might think that a judge’s campaign paying Woodfill’s company to advertise in the newsletter put out by Woodfill’s company might,“reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality.” But, no one would know to be concerned if the judge did not disclose the potential conflict and the judges would not have known to disclose if Woodfill never told them he was a co-owner of the company receiving their payments.

What if I have a case against Bobby Newman and the judge we are in front of a week before trial pays me $10,000 to run ads for the judge in my Mongoose newsletter? Surely, the judge would be expected to disclose this business transaction to my opposing counsel and I think I as a lawyer would have that duty to tell Newman as well. If a judge did agree to advertise in my electronic newsletter, we would need to discuss the design and content of the ad and how many times the ad would run for $5,000. If I am a lawyer who practices before that judge, who would know if I give the judge a discount compared to other advertisers? Would the judge even know if I gave her some extra ads for her $10,000 or, if she knew, would she have to disclose that? Such an advertising deal would not be a single transaction like buying a t-shirt. The lawyer who provides the advertising and the judge would likely have business dealing that would “involve the judge in frequent transactions” in violation of Canon 2(D)(1).

This is actually another troubling issue about this business arrangement between Woodfill's company and the judges: if there was no advertising contract which says exactly what they were buying, how do we know they did not get some special deal from Woodfill? I have asked for advertising contracts and samples of the judges' advertisements but no one provided me those. If Judge XXX paid Woodfill's company $10,000, what exactly was he to get for that money? How big would the ads be? How often would they run or "pop up?" If I advertise with the Houston Chronicle, I sign a contract that says exactly what I am paying for (2"x3" ad that will run for five days in the sports section, for example). We do not know if the judges Woodfill worked in front of got the same advertising deal as state representatives and constables and county commissioners. If only judges, but no other candidates, "paid for advertising" with Woodfill's company, that would be suspicious also.

Judge Lombardino’s campaign paid Woodfill’s company $5,000 (for “advertising”) a few weeks after Lombardino appointed Woodfill to be the amicus attorney representing the children in a custody case and Lombardino ordered the father to pay Woodfill $10,000 in fees. Woodfill was the amicus in that case on the day Lombardino’s campaign made the payment to Woodfill’s company. Did Lombardino or Woodfill inform all concerned of their business relationship? Should Lombardino have left Woodfill on the case?
Life often comes full circle. I started this newsletter because of a case in Judge Lombardino’s court involving Jared Woodfill and Doug York (who has his own GOP slate mailer put out for Police, Inc.). I began to write about our judicial system because some family courts seemed tainted by political influence and campaign contributions and favoritism. These problems undermine the integrity of our justice system and should be a concern to all lawyers and citizens. Obviously, this is still a problem in our family courts.

Many of these Republican judges I have written about in this story are above average judges. I have almost always considered Roy Moore, Charley Prine, and John Schmude to be really good judges. Judge Lombardino runs the friendliest court on the planet for lawyers and is very easy to deal with. Sheri Dean was my next door neighbor for several years. These judges need to realize that the appearance of what they are politically doing undermines the integrity of their courts. They also need to realize that “business as usual” with Hotze and Woodfill is simply no longer acceptable. 

Republican judges, if they survive this November’s election, should renounce Woodfill's and Hotze’s hate and bigotry, refuse their endorsements, and stop paying money to these despicable hate mongers. The judges can find other ways to use their campaign funds to help boost GOP turnout and be confident that Hotze and Woodfill will be doing everything they can to motivate Republican voters regardless of whether they are paid by the judges. Hotze and Woodfill know full well that if there is a Democratic sweep in Harris County, that they lose all of their clout and influence (which is reason alone to hope for a "blue wave" in Harris County this year).

I assume many of these same judges have already made more payments this Fall to Hotze and Woodfill that will be reported in their next campaign finance reports. Rest assured that I will be checking their reports. Stay tuned for more on this shameful story.

In the next weeks, I will look into payments by judges to Gary Polland, who is also a lawyer who practices before the same judges who vie for his endorsement in his Conservative Review slate mailer. Many of the same ethical issues discussed above should apply in Polland’s situation. I think it is time to again check and see how many hundreds of thousands of dollars Polland has made on CPS cases since my last expose in 2014.

My article yesterday exposed in detail what odd, dangerous and mean beliefs Hotze espouses. I sincerely hope that Judges Moore, Prine, Dean, Lombardino and Schmude did not give their campaign funds to Hotze and Woodfill because they agree with their hateful bigotry. I assume that the judges decided to send their campaign funds to Hotze and Woodfill for political reasons. Setting aside considerations of human decency and judicial ethics, I would hope these smart judges would conclude that giving large sums of money to these hateful bigots is not a smart political move. That is why a newspaper or television news operation with a larger circulation than this newsletter needs to get the word out to the citizens of Harris County about what Hotze, Woodfill, and these judges are doing.

I say again:

The judges who seek Hotze's endorsement and who give money to his hate group (or the company he apparently co-owns with Woodfill) should be ashamed of themselves. I would say this to each of those judges: It does not matter how fair or wise you are as a judge on the bench, nor does it matter what else you achieve in your legal careers, nothing you do or have done will wipe out the disgraceful stain on your legacy caused by your support of this hateful, dangerous bigot. You should not seek Hotze's endorsement, benefit from his support, or pay him money. Shame on you!

These judges are not state representatives or county commissioners, they are judges with an ethical duty not to discriminate and to be impartial. They must in all their actions preserve the dignity and integrity of the judicial system. These family court judges hear cases involving gay spouses and transgender children and adoptions by same-sex couples.

Hotze is not just a radical conservative who I disagree with. His own words and actions over decades prove he is a mean, prejudiced, dangerous lunatic. The judges simply should not support and pay money to such a foul bigot who so publicly wants to harm, drive off, and demean the LGBT community.

If Hotze were attacking and threatening Jews, Muslims or the physically disabled like he does gays, no judge would dare send him money or seek his endorsement. These intelligent judges cannot pretend they are not aware of the hate Hotze spews toward the LGBT community."
Thank you for your support! Together We Can Make Our Profession Better and Our Courts More Fair
Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and child custody battle (he won) and understands what his clients are going through. Enos graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was a successful personal injury attorney in Texas City before he decided his true calling was to help families in divorce and child custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities. He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of Interfaith Caring Ministries. The Enos Law Firm serves clients in Galveston County, Brazoria County and Harris County, Texas.
Greg Enos
Board Certified in Family Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization
The Enos Law Firm
www. divorce
Want to join the mailing list?
Just send your email address by text message
Text the code: THEMONGOOSE to 22828 to get started