Judge denies transgender widow Nikki Araguz's motion for a new trial — after finally reading it

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-denies-transgender-widow-nikki-araguzs-motion-trial-1082208.html
7/6/11

Meghan Stabler reports that Wharton County District Judge Randy M. Clapp has denied transgender widow Nikki Araguz's motion for a new trial.

Stabler, a board member for the Human Rights Campaign who's been monitoring the case, said even though the motion was filed 10 days ago, Clapp hadn't read it when he arrived in court for a hearing this morning. Clapp called for a recess so he could read the motion, then returned and promptly dismissed it, Stabler said.

that is sooo typical....    its all good ole boys club here

Quote from: BilliTex on July 07, 2011, 09:47:07 PM
that is sooo typical....    its all good ole boys club here

The denial of the MNT was not a surprise...rare is the instance, civil or criminal that an MNT is granted.  This case was screwed from the beginning by the original trial counsel failing to treat Nikki as a client instead of a cause.  Instead, she is now left hoping that the 13th CoA at Corpus recognizes the issues that Mitchell's office will be advancing on appeal. 

The MNT is/was a necessary evil prior to making the appeal to the CoA level...nothing more, nothing less.  Very perfunctory in nature.

While only having an observer's understanding of the law, I've noticed most courts tend to get pretty upset when they see themselves being used as theatres or publicity machines.

I have to say, most of the information I understood about the Araguz case, before the information and clarifications from Ann, led me to believe that this was a simple case of seeking justice. This has and seems to be continuing to be the line of most of the reports, even those apparently being quite negative about her. Indeed, it was only the woman who Araguz was suing, the first wife, that made any claim that Araguz was seeking publicity more than justice.

Now, especially after hearing some of the information provided by Ann, the situation seems a little different.

If I had been in Araguz's situation and assuming all of her claims are true and those of the first wife are not, I would be raising hell fire. I would never stop until I received justice.

Yet it seems, Araguz is indeed, more interested in a cuase than justice. My limited experience of courst suggests that that is not a good idea really.

Quote from: spacial on July 08, 2011, 06:12:10 AM
I have to say, most of the information I understood about the Araguz case, before the information and clarifications from Ann, led me to believe that this was a simple case of seeking justice. This has and seems to be continuing to be the line of most of the reports, even those apparently being quite negative about her. Indeed, it was only the woman who Araguz was suing, the first wife, that made any claim that Araguz was seeking publicity more than justice.

To clarify, Nikki is NOT suing ANYONE.  It was the former ex-wife and family who brought the action to void the marriage.  Nikki has had to defend herself against the action. 

QuoteYet it seems, Araguz is indeed, more interested in a cuase than justice. My limited experience of courst suggests that that is not a good idea really.

There is a difference between what Nikki wants and what her original legal team wanted to do...Nikki became a pawn in their larger goal where the legal team's goal had failed (IMO) to represent Nikki as a client with an estate issue.  There have been a few activist-related directions she has elected to pursue very recently primarily because, at this point, she is never going to have any semblance of a normal life.  However, rest assured that she is still very much interested in prevailing on the underlying claim...I mean, let's face it...the family is even making waves about her having continued to use the last name of her deceased husband.   

In the Civil Courts building in downtown Los Angeles, the second floor is over a block long.  On the north side of that hall are the major Family Law/Divorce (except that CA no longer has Divorce!  its called Dissolution) Court rooms, and the south side of the hall are the Probate courts.  Those of us who have worked in the building refer to that floor as REVENGE ROW or as the Bailiffs also refer to it as THE WAR ZONE.  (Most of them prefer the Criminal Court duty two blocks away where violence is to be expected) I last worked in the building as an employee 34 years ago, but in early June, I was on a jury in a courtroom on the floor above Revenge Row, and had to go be on that floor to get to my courtroom.  Nothing had changed, the air is absolutely thick with the hatred and malice that make up the litigants there in both of these type of cases.  The demographics of the courthouse the Araguz case took place in, may be slightly different in layout and Texas law is certainly different from California law on some specific items, but the facts are still that a dead person has money, more money than the survivor's of a divorced decedent would otherwise find any entitlement to.  It is ugly. In Downtown Los Angeles, there are 250+ of these cases in the courtrooms on a daily basis and that is only one of the county's 30 court buildings that hear civil ( ) cases.

I think Ann is quite correct in her assessment that the case was ugly enough without the spectacle of "Transsexuality" thrown into the pot at the outset of the case and that Nikki's birth accident should have been a non-issue.  It was going to happen because "Nikki was the second wife who opportunistically married a guy she knew was "gonna buy the farm" and who would then get what the "deserving" real life survivors should have."  My en-quotation there is my sarcastic short version of the real issue.  I get the sense that the Texas courts were denied the opportunity to adequately provide justice in an otherwise mundane probate matter.   

Another motive here...MONEY! Nikki stands to receive $500,000.00 from insurance over her deceased husband's death. Also, the Houston news/TV stations have her pegged as a news item, she's under the microscope!It was 6 o'clock news that Nikki had been arrested for theft of a Lady Rolex watch, charged with a 2nd degree Felony after the first trail ruling. And there is Texas law concerning what constitutes a Female, its what's on your birth certificate. Pictures shown of her are often "mug" shots from HPD or the HCSO.

Quote from: SandraJane on July 08, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
Another motive here...MONEY! Nikki stands to receive $500,000.00 from insurance over her deceased husband's death. Also, the Houston news/TV stations have her pegged as a news item, she's under the microscope!It was 6 o'clock news that Nikki had been arrested for theft of a Lady Rolex watch, charged with a 2nd degree Felony after the first trail ruling. And there is Texas law concerning what constitutes a Female, its what's on your birth certificate. Pictures shown of her are often "mug" shots from HPD or the HCSO.

She was NEVER charged with a 2nd degree felony.  The pending charge is and always has been at the State Jail Felony level, and it has never progressed beyond the Criminal Complaint level (ie. the Grand Jury has not even indicted her for the conduct). 

There are NO HPD mug shots.  There HAVE been recent stories that used the booking photo from when she did the walk-through on May 18th (although the media did not break the story on the walk-through for an additional week). 

There have been a total of two appearances on the criminal charge.  The first was in early June and the second was the one a few weeks ago at what was supposed to have been the arraignment but turned out to be a reset that incorporated the additional bond conditions imposed by Judge Velasquez. 

The effing misconstruals on these boards of what has and has not transpired and what Texas law does or does not say (Littleton is caselaw out of the 4th CoA, it is NOT statute- and the statutes do not speak to what makes one male or female or man or woman) continues to appall me...and yes, I have been in the middle of some of the particular matters at hand. 

I swear.  Trials by "Court of Public Opinion" are becoming soooo annoying. Didn't we just go through one of the worst of these in Florida recently? I'd like to think that if proper reporting were EVER done, we'd hear that a person was arrested on suspicion and a court date has been set; thus allowing a legal process to work. Yet this is NOT where we are today. Specious rumors and speculative propaganda are the order of the day when facts are too difficult and too inconvenient to to be sensationally satisfying as a story.

A prosecution over zealous in it's charging, a hyped up case based on public perception of the individual from the media and a public only too willing to be inflamed does not result in justice.


Dawn

Thank you Ann, and I see you don't disagree about the attention the media in Houston is putting on Nikki. Glad you mentioned the Littletoncase, had not heard of it before. Here is a link to it for anyone interested; http://christielee.net/crtdec1a.htm .