DID JUDGE BETANCOURT PUT HERSELF INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE JOHN DOE CASE?

First the law: 

"The judges of constitutional county courts, statutory county courts, justice courts, and small claims courts in a county may transfer cases to and from the dockets of their respective courts, except that a case may not be transferred from one court to another without the consent of the judge of the court to which it is transferred."

Texas Government Code 74.121(a)

Here is the intrigue, The docket sheet shows the case to have been transferred on the 17th of January.  The reason you stay on top of orders there is a chance the court did not follow the law. I have successfully challenged assignment orders by former Chief Justice Hect. 

The law clearly says county courts can transfer cases among themself, so long as the receiving court consents to receive the case.

That is not what happened.  On the 24th I consulted with the right person who could look into why John Doe had not received the order of transfer.  You get the order to insure it is compliance with law. 

What I learned was although the docket sheet shows the transfer on the 17th, it was not signed until the 24th.

It appears the order it is not in compliance with the law.

This was an order of transfer not the assignment of a judge after self-recusal.  In the criminal case with all the evidence of Judge Chavez-Vasquez wrongdoing, she avoids entering an Order of Recusal, which could taint the case, and instead enters an order of transfer, without designation the court which agreed to take the case as mandated by law.

It seems that Judges Laura Betancourt and Estel Chavez-Vasquez confused how a case is reassigned if the judge recuses herself v. a transfer. This is a jurisdictional issue.  It appears because the law was ignored the assignment may be void.  It wreaks of forum shopping. 

In the civil sister suit, Judge Chavez-Vasquez recused herself without a basis in law as provided for by the Rules.  Based on her recusal a visiting judge was assigned.

That matter has been pending before the court of appeals for months, and they have agreed to hear the argument I am the sole voice the court can consider as the ADA advocate.