Isn't That Special?

You'll recall (and if you don't, shame on you) that the Special Court of Review decided last month that Sharon Keller was just a good o' boy and shouldn't have been either warned or warned of by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  No, I'm not going to rehash any of that here.  Go read the earlier posts (here) if you want my take on all that happened.  

What you won't recall from my post last month, because I didn't mention it, was that the Special Court also said, in its judgment, Keller should get her attorneys fees back.  You know, the good people of Texas should foot the bill for trying to besmirch her good name.  

Just like criminal defendants get back the money they pay their lawyers whenever they're found not guilty (and a portion when they're convicted of lesser offenses).  Oh, wait.  That doesn't happen.

But Keller wasn't a bad guy who won on a technicality.  She was a good gal who won on a technicality.  Makes all the difference in the world.  She was, as she claimed, vindicated.  So of course she shouldn't have to pay.

Except, well, she does.  From Chuck Lindell at Statesman.com:

State law, however, specifies that court costs and attorney fees cannot be awarded in judicial conduct proceedings.

So the Special Court issued an Amended Judgment, still dismissing the charges, but no longer saying that the taxpayers of Texas have to pick up the tab for the multi-millionheiress judge (who's been fined $100,000 by the Texas Ethics Commission for lying about hiding failing to report a couple of million dollars in assets).

Grits notes that between the 100K for the ethics fine and the 100K in legal bills the taxpayers won't pay, it's getting toward real money.   And he continues to wonder why they haven't brought criminal charges against Keller for the failure to report.  

And, by the way, its not all over yet.  She's appealed the $100,000 ethics fine.  And the Special Court hasn't ruled yet on the motion to reconsider its dismissal of the charges against her.