In Part One of this story (please read it if you haven’t - scroll a few stories down from this one) I mentioned I was a concerned citizen who wants our justice system to work, and who plans to vote in the next election. I also said I intended to offer my opinion, but my goal was to include information that will hopefully cause readers to believe my analysis is fair and balanced – even if they disagree. So I will stick with that idea despite efforts to intimidate or to obfuscate.
Let me start by agreeing with any who have questioned that Judge Hight’s Trust renting to people who appear before him in the 75th District Court qualifies as “some kind of Watergate scandal”. The monthly rental checks received by the Hight Trust, regardless of the amount of each, clearly by themselves, do not point to much of anything – except perhaps poor judgment.
Let me also express to those who have responded to Article One with so many four letter words you weren’t posted, that I never claimed to be a lawyer and that people who are much more schooled in the technicalities of the law can debate you as to whether these transactions are legal or whether they are based on where Judge Hight’s children live, etc. Re-read Article One and you will see that I said I would offer my opinion about what is right and what is wrong and that I would back up my opinion with rationally reasoned thoughtful discourse.
Remember I defined the term quid pro quo as a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situation, as opposed to a legal definition. I would enjoy debating any lawyers that would defend such behavior but my purpose is to present to the voters a fair and balanced view of what kind of person Judge Hight is. If there are no dots or I can’t connect the dots, then voters should pay me no mind. But if I manage to show the voters that the 75th District Court in Liberty County is being run unsatisfactorily, even those voters who have voted for Judge Hight in the past, then I ask people to help me make a change.
So Part Two of this story continues to “following the money” or as was said before - to talk about the “quid”. Again, I can just hear local lawyers who want to continue to appear before Judge Hight: “How dare these people pretend to understand the law or Latin.” Then they read the law chapter and verse and declare the Judge is in no way involved a quid pro quo according to their interpretation, prejudice, etc.
But as I said before most of us are not lawyers, nor are we jurors in a case against Judge Hight. But we are voters who can cast votes to hire and fire judges.
Therefore some of my questions are: “Is Judge C.T. “Rusty” Hight “scratching the back” of any of those people leasing the previously discussed properties from the C.T. Hight Trust?” “How much have the monthly rentals been for each tenant?” “Is it true that any (or perhaps all) of his tenant are receiving thousands of dollars in taxpayer money from work they have been given as a result of District Judge C.T. Rusty Hight appointing them to some task ( defense, private detective work, etc)?”
These are just a few of the things on my mind; there are many other questions that need to be asked. Many people who pay a significant amount of rental money each month to the C.T. Hight Trust appear before Judge C. T. "Rusty" Hight and receive court appointed work from him. In one case alone, one of these people was awarded $100,000 by Judge Hight.
Please continue to follow the money (and the interesting court decisions) with me as we take a look at the most important local race in the November election and we uncover whether Judge Hight’s sentencing has been what voters would hope – especially when it involves his renters serving as the defense lawyers.
In summary, we will study how Hight's decisions relate to those he has a financial interest in or is a political enemy of... and his personal and ethical behavior.
Stay tuned to this informative, detailed and multi-faceted expose' on candidate for Liberty County Judge, Carol "Rusty" Hight.