About the Author
Jo Clifton is the Politics Editor for the Austin Monitor.
Newsletter Signup
The Austin Monitor thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Most Popular Stories
- Parks Board recommends vendor for Zilker Café, while voicing concerns about lack of local presence
- City leaders evaluate surprising ideas for water conservation
- Audit: Economic official granted arts, music funding against city code
- Downtown Historic Resource Survey eyes seven new districts eligible for designation
- Austin is losing even more water to leaky city pipes than previously thought
-
Discover News By District
Popular Whispers
Sorry. No data so far.
Bastrop, Leffingwell in court today
Wednesday, September 21, 2016 by Jo Clifton
Barring a decision by District Judge Carson Campbell to grant a continuance, Bastrop, Bastrop County and the Bastrop Independent School District will have a final hearing today in their lawsuit against the Pine Forest Investments Group, whose principal investor is Robert Leffingwell, brother of former Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. Leffingwell’s attorney, Ben Wetmore, has filed a motion for continuance. Wetmore has been attempting to schedule a settlement conference with Charles Bundren, the attorney for the Bastrop entities, but Bundren has asserted his unavailability for such a conference. At this point, Bastrop has paid Bundren $723,531 to litigate the matter. Other defendants in the lawsuit include former Pine Forest Property Owners Association members John Clark, John Gardner and William Haschke, all of whom are represented by Austin attorney Bill Aleshire. In responding to Wetmore’s motion for continuance, Bundren asserted throughout a lengthy response that Clark, Gardner and Haschke committed fraud, even though the plaintiffs’ petition did not allege fraud. Bundren also alleged that Leffingwell and the property owners association defendants “filed a frivolous, false and fraudulent affidavit of Paul Burt, suggesting that Judge Campbell may have violated the Judicial Canons of Texas.” Burt’s affidavit, detailed here, said that he witnessed the judge talking to the plaintiffs and their lawyers behind a locked glass door several hours before the ruling in their favor. Burt said that he could not hear the conversation. Bundren’s proposed final judgment includes allegations of fraud against Clark, Gardner and Haschke. Aleshire told Bundren via email on Tuesday that he could avoid unnecessarily adding additional parties – Aleshire’s clients – and additional issues for appeal by changing the wording to indicate error, for example, as opposed to fraud. Wetmore has said he was present in the judge’s chambers when Bundren told Campbell that an appeal would cost the governments $75,000 to $125,000.
Join Your Friends and Neighbors
We're a nonprofit news organization, and we put our service to you above all else. That will never change. But public-service journalism requires community support from readers like you. Will you join your friends and neighbors to support our work and mission?