wreckatx

Anyone else at Dylan last night?

Haven’t seen In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel mentioned. Incredible album.

Phelan from the top rope.

SCOTX granted OAG's stay postponing the depositions, but asked the whistleblowers to respond to the mandamus by 2/29.

I misspoke. The requirement that the legislature approve settlements or judgments against the state in excess of $250k is in the general appropriations act. All kinds of judgements and settlements over this threshold are routinely approved by the legislature every session. It was really unusual that the Lege didn’t approve the whistleblowers settlement last session.

This is incorrect. The whistleblower act provides an explicit, limited waiver of sovereign immunity to allow govt employees that are fired because they report crimes by other govt employees to sue their employing agency for lost wages, reinstatement or front pay, and attorney’s fees. However, the government code requires legislative approval approval of any settlement with or judgment against a state agency that is in excess of $250k. A judge cannot order the executive branch to pay, or the legislature to approve payment of, a judgment against the state because of separation of powers. The decision whether to approve payment is vested strictly in the legislature.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/judge-sets-paxton-deposition-in-whistleblower-lawsuit-for-feb-1/

The whistleblowers? I was talking about their lawyers- Tom Nesbitt, TJ Turner, and Joe Knight

There are some really good lawyers on that team.

Devine is a true believer and Blacklock may be, too. Just when you thought that court could not get any more conservative.

Statement from Tom Nesbitt, whistleblower Blake Brickman’s attorney, on this development: “Ken Paxton hid out from his impeachment trial and was excused from testifying because he invoked his right not to incriminate himself. And he has played so long for delay in this case because he is terrified to answer questions about his corrupt conduct. He should be.”

SCOTX denied Paxton's mandamus (appeal) of the order requiring him to appear for deposition.

I think the confusion with your comments is because Nate is not a party to the Whistleblower suit. Nate was at the courthouse Wednesday testifying in one of his lawsuits, and the Whistleblowers served him with a subpoena and deposition notice in their suit. So it wasn't a subpoena served on a party defendant. In other words, the Whistleblowers are going to depose Nate, which should be interesting to say the least.

Rule against perpetuities probably applies here as well.

The whistleblowers served Paul with a subpoena and deposition notice in their suit today.