Indicted TX AG Ken Paxton Aims for Settlement of Employees Lawsuit Claimin’ Bribery and Corruption

Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar — Paxton’s former deputies — asked the Texas Supreme Court to put the whistleblower case on hold.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Office, As Expected, Settles for $3.3M of Your Tax Dollars

FEB 10, 2023

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton negotiating settlement with his former deputies over retaliation lawsuit

Three of Paxton’s four former employees who sued him for unjustly firing them when they reported his actions to authorities are considering settling with the attorney general.

JAN 31, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 5, 2023

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s legal team is in settlement negotiation talks with three of the four former employees who filed a whistleblower lawsuit against him for firing them after they accused Paxton of criminal acts.

Paxton’s lawyers, in a joint filing last week with attorneys for Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar — Paxton’s former deputies — asked the Texas Supreme Court to put the whistleblower case on hold to give the parties time to negotiate a settlement.

The lawyers wrote they were “actively engaged in settlement discussions” with mediation set for Wednesday.

Lawyers for a fourth plaintiff, Blake Brickman, opposed the motion in their own filing and urged the court to move forward with its consideration. The news was first reported by The Dallas Morning News.

The high-profile case has been yet another black eye for Paxton, a Republican whose litany of legal troubles have followed him throughout much of his tenure as attorney general and at times alienated him from other GOP state officials. Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges in August 2015. That case is still pending and Paxton has denied wrongdoing. More recently, Paxton was sued last year by the Texas State Bar for professional misconduct for misrepresenting that he had uncovered new evidence to file a lawsuit to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential elections in four battleground states. Paxton has maintained the suit is politically motivated and denied wrongdoing.

The case stems from allegation in October 2020 by eight former top Paxton aides who reported to authorities that the attorney general had abused his office and accepted a bribe in exchange for helping a political donor with his business affairs.

The whistleblowers also alleged that Paxton, who is married, helped the donor – NATE PAUL – because the donor had given Paxton’s alleged girlfriend a job.

Those reports led to an FBI investigation. No federal charges have been filed.

All eight of the employees were either fired or resigned from the attorney general’s office after making the complaint.

In November 2020, four of those former employees filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Paxton saying they had been fired in retaliation. They sought reinstatement and compensation for lost wages, as well as pay for future lost earnings and damages for emotional pain and suffering.

Paxton has argued in state court that he is exempt from the Texas Whistleblower Act because he is an elected official, not a public employee and that he fired them not in retaliation for their complaint, but because of personnel disagreements.

An appeals court has ruled against him and allowed the case to move forward. But last January, Paxton appealed his case to the Texas Supreme Court.

The joint filing by Paxton’s lawyers and the three plaintiffs says the court should defer its review of the case until Feb. 9 to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the issue outside of the courtroom.

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brickman’s lawyers, Thomas Nesbitt and William T. Palmer, said in their filing that Paxton’s team has been delaying the case for two years and “there is no reason for abating this case.”

They argued that the other plaintiffs sought the pause only because they intended to settle the case, but since Brickman was not involved in those negotiations, his claims still needed a quick resolution.

“Brickman respectfully requests that this Court deny the request for abatement,” they wrote. “It imposes further needless delay of the adjudication of Brickman’s claim.”

To the Honorable Supreme Court of Texas:

Petitioner and the three above-captioned respondents jointly move the Court to defer consideration of the petition for review pending the outcome of their ongoing settlement negotiations.

Petitioner filed the petition for review on January 5, 2022.

The Court requested a response on February 18 and briefs on the merits on May 27. Petitioner’s brief on the merits was filed on July 27, respondents’ brief on the merits was filed on September 15, and petitioner’s reply was filed on September 30.

The petition for review remains under consideration by the Court.

Petitioners and three of the four respondents are actively engaged in settlement discussions, with mediation tentatively planned for February 1, 2023.

Uncertainty regarding whether this Court will grant the petition for review is a material factor in the parties’ negotiations, so abatement will facilitate settlement of the underlying matter.

Should the parties reach a settlement, they anticipate moving for disposition of the case pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3.

The parties there-fore respectfully ask this Court to abate consideration of the petition until February 9, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.

Should negotiations appear fruitful but require additional time, the above-captioned parties may jointly request an additional limited abatement.

Should negotiations prove unsuccessful, the parties will move to lift the abatement order for the Court to recommence consideration of the petition for review.

OPINION – Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Brickman,  (Tex. App. 2021)

Dirty Deals: Austin Car Dealer and Businessman Bryan Hardeman’s Arrest on Suspicion of Arson

The same Hardeman who made a statement on video at Nate Paul’s auction “go find a court in this building to stop this”.

Who is Vinh Truong, Real Estate Investor, Motivational Speaker and Self-Claimed Venture Capitalist?

Vinh Truong owns and operates several businesses and websites involved in foreclosures and distressed real estate investment.

3 Years In Litigation: Vinh Truong Sued for Title Deed Fraud Defended by Bandit Lawyer Jeff Jackson

VINH TRUONG has testified that he is one and the same as QUANG V. TRUONG. Yet there is no official filing of a name change in Harris County.

Hefty Cash Bribes Aimed Towards Lt Gov Dan Patrick’s Gavel in Impeachment Trial of AG Ken Paxton

Presiding over impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick receives $3 million cash bribes (donations).

Bandit Lawyer Clay Vilt Files C J Charles Stop Foreclosure Auction Lawsuit Early

Robert Clayton Vilts’ Stop Foreclosure Auction Practice is still motoring along, despite a rap sheet as big as Ken Paxton and Nate Paul.

The Shack’s Showin’ Up in Harris County District Court with His Ten Dollars for the Obey Clan

Lawyer Ray Shackelford has a HAR realtor called Isaac Flores lined up as a buyer, who owns a Texas Corp. called IMA Investments, LLC.

BDF Hopkins Response Deemed Legally Incompetent by Burke in Reply in Support of Rule 59(e) Motion

If the law and Const. is applied correctly by an impartial judiciary who follow the rule of law it should have no difficulty vacating judgment

The Bounty Hunters, BDF Hopkins Response to Rule 59(e) Motion Re Burke

Burke v PHH Ocwen, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark Hopkins and Shelley Hopkins before Bent Judge Al Bennett, SDTX, Houston.

US Magistrate Judge Mark Lane Correctly Denies Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

The case is high profile – it involves Nate Paul and the foreclosure of many of his commercial properties in questionable circumstances.

Indicted TX AG Ken Paxton Aims for Settlement of Employees Lawsuit Claimin’ Bribery and Corruption
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top