Fox In Montford’s Henhouse?

We love the heat being generatd in this DA’s race! This little nugget was just irresistable…

In the midst of her runoff campaign for Travis County District Attorney on April 8, Mindy Montford has turned to a disgraced political consultant charged with election fraud to help her get across the finish line.

Mark Littlefield is charged with submitting 1,000 forged signatures to the Hays County Election Office during a petition drive to approve an Austin Community College campus in San Marcos. The case is still pending.

A former top aide to State Representative Patrick Rose, Littlefield also worked for Montford’s ex-husband Brewster McCracken in his Austin City Council race.

Posted on March 25, 2008 – 10:13 am by APR

  1. 10 Responses to “Fox In Montford’s Henhouse?”

  2. Wow. This shows really bad judgment on Mindy’s part.

    By Willis on Mar 25, 2008

  3. It is hard to figure out which one of these politicians has the worst judgment. Is it Patrick Rose since he orginally hired Littlefield? Is it Mindy Montford since she hired him again? Or is it Brewster McCracken for not just hiring Littlefield but marrying Mindy?

    By Willis on Mar 25, 2008

  4. Littlefield has been Charged not Convicted. It is nice to see the far left will still go to great lengths to protect some but will toss others under the bus.

    Why is the media ignoring or not questioning the link between Butts and Company clients and sweet plea deals for politicians who get arrested for misdemeanors.

    Or why Gary Cobb walk away from the second chair on the most horrific murder case in Travis County, since the Yogurt Shop murders, after he lost his election bid…?

    Those two issues have meaning in our community, unlike a low level staffer on a campaign.

    By Charged with...Not Convicted...Get it Right... on Mar 26, 2008

  5. Charged with… I don’t see anywhere on this post that someone has claimed Littlefield was convicted. In fact, the post clearly states he is “charged with election fraud.” Am I missing something?

    By Duiker on Mar 26, 2008

  6. Since the person who runs this website regularly takes positions on political matters–such as schilling for Villa Muse, attacking Lee Leffingwell, and pointing an accusatory finger at Mark Littefield–he should be open as to who he is and not operate as an anonymous provocateur. If this person will offer the simple courtesy of telling readers who he is, then the readers can deduce what biases may be influencing the post.

    Come on, be a mensch, let us know who you are.

    By Schlomo on Mar 26, 2008

  7. I am not sure the guy was ever charged . . .with anything . . . ever. There were bad signatures, and he was managing that effort. There was an investigation. Unless I missed something, no charges were ever filed. I think it is fair to say the guy was under investigation two years ago. Anything beyond that is probably not correct, unless I missed something in the news.

    By Papa on Mar 26, 2008

  8. Yes, papa, you missed something. Mark Littlefield was charged in Hays County with “election fraud” in connection with a petition drive he was hired to run by ACC, a taxpayer supported entity. ACC wanted to open a San Marcos campus but ran into legal trouble when Littlefield’s petition drive forged signatures. The crime was even worse because of the public money involved. The case is still open. And now he’s working for a candidate for DA in a neighboring county.

    By El Jefe on Mar 27, 2008

  9. Actual criminal charges were filed by the Hays County DA? I am not a lawyer, but I think that means if charges were filed and then the case would then be taken to a grand jury for an indictment, and then to trial. I have not heard any of that yet. Can you link a story to your post?

    I am not defending Littlefield or Montford, I knew the guy’s wife 3-4 years ago when she worked at the Capitol. I think I would have heard the gossip if he was charged, indicted, convicted, etc. It is possible I missed it.

    By Papa on Mar 27, 2008

  10. I am a lawyer and I assure you that charges in a slam dunk case like this one don’t need to go through a grand jury. The accused are simply charged with the crime. Why this case is still pending I have no idea. Maybe his pal Patrick Rose is trying to work out a deal behind the scenes?

    By El Jefe on Mar 27, 2008

  11. I worked with Mark a few years back and after some simple and easy fact searching, I have found that you are incorrect.

    He has not (I REPEAT, NOT) been charged, tried, arrested, nor has he been convicted. He was investigated and it obviously was not a “slam dunk” as you so claim. If it were, wouldn’t two years be enough time to make a case?

    I am doubtful that this is a legitimate news source as there seems to be a desire to make false reports and an agenda that is driven by a cowardly crew who remain anonymous!

    By Just did a check - check your facts on Mar 30, 2008

Post a Comment