I find it laughable that the Advocate (and onestar) quote:
"Texas Government Code 495.025, which says: "The (prison) shall ensure that no confidential attorney-client communication is monitored or recorded by the department or any person acting on the department's behalf ... ""
When in fact it reads:
ยง 495.025. Certain Commissary Contracts; Taste Tests
(a) For the purchase of commissary food goods, the department may conduct a taste test as consideration for a bid award only if, to conduct the test, the department contracts with a private marketing vendor, a university, or another independent organization that is experienced in food product evaluation and taste tests.
(b) In awarding a bid for commissary food goods for which a taste test is conducted, the department may use the taste test results as not more than 30 percent of the criteria used for the bid award.
(c) A contract into which the department enters under Subsection (a) must require the vendor, university, or other organization, at the expense of the vendor, university, or organization, to annually re-conduct the taste test to ensure that the product meets the original specifications of the request for proposal that resulted in the department entering a contract for the tested product.
Pretty sloppy fact-checking, Advocate.
As to the actual code, three things to keep in mind:
1) It only applies to convicted persons, not an inmate.
2) It only applies to penitentiaries, not jails such as VCSO.
3) It's never been used as evidence.
After visiting the County Clerk's office, and requesting public records, I discovered an indictment with Matt Ocker's name on it. Matt, do you care to respond to this fact?
romonak, if you're confident that you know it is fact, quote your source as victoriaconcernedcitizen did, otherwise your assertion holds no water.
As advertised darlins64, life for this beast. Tyler prosecuted this case himself and he and his office have 4 life convictions this week alone.
I agree with southtexasguy, esp. the monkey part...quite annoying. JD, speak up.
darlins64, rest assured, justice will be done and Tyler will see to it...life for this beast.
May we inject some logic here? Unless you two understand procedure as it pertains to the practice of law in this state, I suggest you wait to comment until there's something of substance to comment upon. Geez...
Normally I stick to the "heavy" news to comment, but that pdf graphic was exceptional...nice job.
news2, I saw that...at first I thought it was just sailor taking a swipe at me...:)
news2me (and Vic Adv Staff),
I noticed this after I posted my last entry. I attempted to edit, after posting, and the
large space appeared at the beginning. My guess is your editing engine went "wacko"
(technical term). If you'd like, delete my post and I'll repost to see if that clears it.
Newsletter
I find it laughable that the Advocate (and onestar) quote:
"Texas Government Code 495.025, which says: "The (prison) shall ensure that no confidential attorney-client communication is monitored or recorded by the department or any person acting on the department's behalf ... ""
When in fact it reads:
ยง 495.025. Certain Commissary Contracts; Taste Tests
(a) For the purchase of commissary food goods, the department may conduct a taste test as consideration for a bid award only if, to conduct the test, the department contracts with a private marketing vendor, a university, or another independent organization that is experienced in food product evaluation and taste tests.
(b) In awarding a bid for commissary food goods for which a taste test is conducted, the department may use the taste test results as not more than 30 percent of the criteria used for the bid award.
(c) A contract into which the department enters under Subsection (a) must require the vendor, university, or other organization, at the expense of the vendor, university, or organization, to annually re-conduct the taste test to ensure that the product meets the original specifications of the request for proposal that resulted in the department entering a contract for the tested product.
Pretty sloppy fact-checking, Advocate.
As to the actual code, three things to keep in mind:
1) It only applies to convicted persons, not an inmate.
2) It only applies to penitentiaries, not jails such as VCSO.
3) It's never been used as evidence.
After visiting the County Clerk's office, and requesting public records, I discovered an indictment with Matt Ocker's name on it. Matt, do you care to respond to this fact?
romonak, if you're confident that you know it is fact, quote your source as victoriaconcernedcitizen did, otherwise your assertion holds no water.
As advertised darlins64, life for this beast. Tyler prosecuted this case himself and he and his office have 4 life convictions this week alone.
I agree with southtexasguy, esp. the monkey part...quite annoying. JD, speak up.
darlins64, rest assured, justice will be done and Tyler will see to it...life for this beast.
May we inject some logic here? Unless you two understand procedure as it pertains to the practice of law in this state, I suggest you wait to comment until there's something of substance to comment upon. Geez...
Normally I stick to the "heavy" news to comment, but that pdf graphic was exceptional...nice job.
news2, I saw that...at first I thought it was just sailor taking a swipe at me...:)
news2me (and Vic Adv Staff),
I noticed this after I posted my last entry. I attempted to edit, after posting, and the
large space appeared at the beginning. My guess is your editing engine went "wacko"
(technical term). If you'd like, delete my post and I'll repost to see if that clears it.