Not only was a removal petition filed, the District Judge ordered citation to issue under sec. 87.016 of the Local Government Code. The standard for such action is far from clear, but presumably it means the court finds the facts alleged could constitute grounds for removal (in this case: intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official duties). Even before that decision by the District Judge, the local County Attorney recused himself. Cf. sec. 87.018(d). This all raises the interesting question of whether the judgment in Sudderth's contempt case (which as far as I can tell was based on exactly the same conduct alleged in the removal petition) should be treated as estopping Sudderth from defending the removal suit. Perhaps that, more than anything else, is why he sought to have the contempt judgment set aside (though without success). The other issue is whether "behavior" as used in the statute implies a pattern of conduct or encompasses just any single instance (i.e., demands near perfection in the performance of duties).

The entire fiasco in Brown County is really pretty frightening to all officers of the court if you think about, especially considering Sudderth testified under oath that he believed his so-called false statements "to be correct, true and in accordance with what I was representing to the court" and denied allegations from Albert Atwood's wife and stepdaughters that he didn't tell them about a pending plea bargain. While it now seems pretty clear Sudderth will prematurely lose the job he was elected to do, his exit will be anything other than the "graceful" one he apparently sought in July. Mark, one hopes that there really was a lot more to this than a single instance of gross misunderstanding or miscommunication. Otherwise, we seem to be witnessing the collaboration of judges to oust another public official over a matter that hardly warranted the thousands of dollars being spent upon it.