From: Martin Peterson [m_peterson7@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:50 AM
Subject: My Response

Steve Gaylord:  Obviously I am left without any ability to defend myself against the fake endorsement of Haverkamp by the Register and her full-page advertisement (which apparently influenced the endorsement).  Thus, I would ask that you include my remarks on your "renegade" web site. 

The first question for J. Osborne would be why did the Register choose to break with its own tradition and endorse "a" candidate in the local party primaries, particularly when I could not respond. 

If it were going to do that, why was I not interviewed by the "newspaper"?

Why must Haverkamp's endorsement for another four years as judge depend on her "sterling" record from 1993 to 2004? Which, by the way was not sterling at all, as shown by the following statistics: 1997: felony cases referred to DA by police for prosecution- 360, cases actually filed (indicted)- 260, cases prosecuted to completion- 241; 1998: 328/334/310; 1999: 305/195/265; 2000: 415/359/194; 2001: 300/258/328; 2002: 368/261/249; 2003: 385/260/287; 2004: 486/415/310.  Anyone can see why there were so many (about 300)cases awaiting review and indictment when Cindy Stormer took office and why the backlog of pending cases grew by 158 cases during this time period despite the artificially low number of cases indicted.

Does the Register mean to imply that I am not a highly principled, moral person, in citing that as one of Haverkamp's qualifications?

From whence does the statement come that Haverkamp has reduced the average costs for court-appointed attorneys by $200 per case?  Why not quote the total expenditures, to see how they compare with other similar counties (as I do on my campaign website)?  The fact of the matter is that we have Denton and Montague County attorneys volunteering to represent indigents in Cooke County (presumably because they make money doing so); that the hourly rate in Dallas County (where presumably the lawyer's overhead expenses are greater) is $75 rather than the $90 paid here; and that we consistently pay out more than Wise County (which has almost 20,000 more in population).

Why not compare Haverkamp's disposition or clearance rate with the statewide average of 1,974 cases per year. See http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/annual-reports.asp and page 36 of the 2007 annual report at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2007/published-annual-report-2007.pdf  (note this will appear as "page 42 of 67" in the pdf document on your computer), which reads as follows: "In 2007 . . . the number of cases disposed per district judge increased slightly (0.9 percent) to 1,974 cases.  Overall, the case clearance rate rose to 95.4 percent in 2007, which was equivalent to the ten-year average."  By contrast, Judge Haverkamp's court managed a clearance rate of 88.5% on the civil side (http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2007/dc/14-dc-cv-activity-by-co-fy07.pdf at "page 9 of 43") and 91.6% on the criminal side (http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2007/dc/15-dc-cr-activity-by-co-fy07.pdf at "page 9 of 43") .   Another page of interest to all may be http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2007/dc/6-district-activity-by-co-sorted-by-pop-fy07.pdf

It is simply disingenuous to say Haverkamp appears to be doing a lot, when almost every other judge does a whole lot more.

I also question the value of her supposed record of victories at trial.  I have not verified that she never lost a felony trial.  But, if that is true, then it is more easily understood when you consider she tried as few as one trial per year (in 1998 and 1999) and never tried more than 8 in one year (2002).  That is what might be called "cherry-picking." 

The issue for Haverkamp has never been lowering her caseload.  It has always been keeping up with her caseload and providing a timely trial.  Even before the additional 221 cases were added to the backlog, our court was a disgrace.  With Judge Woodlock hearing the entire criminal docket for many months, there is in my mind no reasonable excuse for an increase in the backlog of civil cases.  Yet, it grew by 20% in just three years.  And we spent thousands and thousands of dollars housing persons in our jail while awaiting a trial for many, many, many months.

J Osborne is not a good source of information about the qualifications of those seeking your vote for 235th District Judge.  I see now why the Register has not attempted to endorse candidates before.  It lacks the capability to do more than reward those who support the existence of the Register.  I cannot decide which is more shameful, Osborne's lop-sided view of things or the outright malarky in Haverkamp's "I've had enough" speech on page 9A.  I guess I have become a troublemaker by seeking to see that the law of the State of Texas applies in Cooke County.  So be it.  But, I will stake my reputation and legal acumen against Haverkamp's any day of any week any where (with the possible exception of 306 E. California St. in Gainesville).  If my attacks on her practices and the results have seemed "vicious" it can only be because they have not been previously revealed.  Haverkamp's true record is she was opposed at every election since 1992 by someone else.  There was a reason for that. 

To the reader, please make anyone you think needs to know of this outrage aware of my statement.

Martin Peterson

Pol. Ad paid for my Cooke Citizens for Martin Peterson www.cookecitizens.org