Kristen Lindsey update

[redalter]

Arrghh. That is so true.

Don’t focus on the horrible behavior - (not the weed smoking) - KL, but that she wasn’t “trained” on social media?

At my job we have periodic “training” such as it is, on social media, but it is about ethics, etc.

I wonder if her attorney thinks,well it’s fine if she tortures and murders, but she didn’t know better than not to post it?

What a P.O.S.

[Paks]

For those of you who love court dramas or comedies (I think this fits the latter better) the latest on Kristen.

BREAKING NEWS: KRISTEN LINDSEY AND BRIAN BISHOP GO SHOPPING. . . FOR A NEW COURT
Update and Commentary by Tiger’s Justice Team

Yes, friends of Tiger, it’s true. THERE IS YET ANOTHER LEGAL TWIST INVOLVING KRISTEN LINDSEY. The latest maneuver is an attempt on the part of her attorney Brian Bishop to bypass established legal procedures and head straight to a court which he may think will be more favorable to his client— the 3RD COURT OF APPEALS.

So what’s so special about the 3rd Court of Appeals? One time this court ruled against the vet board. The legal issues in that case differed to the point of irrelevancy, but it seems Lindsey is looking for any port in the storm.

We expect that at some point the courts will say, “Enough is enough.” After all, Lindsey was found to be unfit to practice veterinary medicine by the legally authorized Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners last year.

Lindsey rejected the board’s decision to revoke her license, forcing the case to the next level— the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). The case was heard in April 2016, and a decision will be made in the next several months.

Listed below are Bishop’s previous efforts to avert Lindsey’s license revocation through SOAH:

10/14/15: Original Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion of Frivolous Claims
11/10/15: First Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss
11/12/15: Supplemental Motion for Summary Disposition and Supplemental Summary Judgment Evidence
11/17/15: Second Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Summary Evidence
12/04/15: Third Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment
04/08/16: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
04/08/16: Motion to Stay Proceedings
04/15/16: Reply to Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

How did this strategy work for Lindsey? Not so well. SOAH judges issued the following Orders rejecting Bishop’s efforts to shield Lindsey from facing the consequences of her behavior:

01/22/16: Order Denying Respondent’s Plea to the Jurisdiction
01/26/16: Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss
04/19/16: Order Denying Respondent’s Second Plea to the Jurisdiction

Undaunted by SOAH’s adherence to law and procedure, Team Lindsey then tried to bypass SOAH by suing the vet board in Travis County District Court for seeking disciplinary action against Lindsey. (Please keep in mind that unlike the vet board’s case against Lindsey, in this District Court case Kristen Lindsey is the Plaintiff and the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is the Defendant. The vet board is represented by the State Attorney General’s office in this matter.)

Bishop maintains that the vet board lacks the authority to revoke Lindsey’s license based on the legal issues raised in the case. The short, plain language interpretation of Bishop’s argument is “The board does not have the right to take Lindsey’s license, so let’s drop the whole thing.”

Included in Bishop’s suit against the board was a request for an injunction:

04/08/16: Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Equitable Relief and Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunction

Not surprisingly, the Court rejected Bishop’s request, responding with:

04/13/16: Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Temporary Restraining Order

The vet board’s defense team also responded strongly on 05/02/16, filing a Plea to the Jurisdiction, Original Answer, and Affirmative Defenses, followed by a Request for Hearing and Ruling on Their Plea to the Jurisdiction. The board’s attorneys contended that:

“Dr. Lindsey is attempting an end run around a pending administrative proceeding involving alleged acts of animal cruelty. . . Dr. Lindsey’s premature attempt to circumvent that administrative process is wholly without merit.”

The attorneys for the defense also stated:

“Further, Defendants submit that allowing this case to proceed to further proceedings and trial before the Court determines its subject matter jurisdiction would potentially waste the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources.”

The Defendants’ submissions to court are concise and substantive, which comes as no surprise considering who comprises the vet board’s defense team. The documents were signed by none other than:

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Jeffrey C. Mateer, First Assistant Attorney General
James E. Davis, Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
Nicole Bunker-Henderson, Chief, Administrative Law Division
Ted A. Ross, Assistant Attorney General

Some attorneys might sensibly conclude that if the State Attorney General considers your case a waste of time and resources, it might be time to let it go, but not Team Lindsey. The very next day, Bishop attempted to circumvent Travis County District Court by filing this 78 page document:

05/03/16: Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Transfer to the Third Court of Appeals

As with the vet board and SOAH, the Travis County Court seems insusceptible to Bishop’s rhetoric. Bishop took on some heavy hitters here, and his scorecard in this case doesn’t look too good right now, so perhaps that explains why he chose his latest strategy— leapfrog over Travis County District Court altogether, and take the case to the 3rd Court of Appeals.

Thus far, Bishop’s dismissal arguments have dumped almost 300 pages of mostly redundant and irrelevant material on two courts, wasting hours of state government time and thousands of taxpayer dollars. Now Team Lindsey wants to hopscotch to a third venue. And of course, Bishop is still endeavoring to retrieve court costs and attorney’s fees from the state of Texas.

Good luck with that one.

NOTE: Lindsey’s suit against the vet board is Cause # D-1-GN-16-001508 in Travis County District Court. Please note that the documents are a matter of public record, but they are not freely accessible online. Those who wish to get additional information can request the documents through a downloadable form from the Travis County Clerk’s office. A fee will be charged for the documents. (Texas attorneys may access the documents at no charge by setting up an online account with the Travis County Court.)

Now understand this even even before her lawyer submits his final arguments to the SOAH on 10 June. Perhaps it wasn’t coming together as well as he’d hoped when he tried to write it?

In other, not related to TBVME case, Lindsey news.

http://www.examiner.com/article/kristen-lindsey-to-appear-before-harris-court-may-9-for-dwi-charge

the 9 may was a preliminary hearing and of course her defense lawyer (different from the one in the vet board case) is dragging that out too.