Although the jury only awarded Inez Clark slap-on-the-wrist damages of $25, and Judge Barefoot Sanders dismissed the civil rights case against Jones after he pleaded judicial immunity, jurors still believed that Jones used the authority of his office to engage in a conspiracy to deprive Inez of her civil rights. The verdict seemed paltry, but the victory, says Inez, vindicated a principle that she had been zealously fighting for since 1995.
"I really don't want the woman's money," claims Inez. "My whole issue was that [Sandra] dragged me through the courts for no reason at all...You don't make false allegations against people because you don't like them."
Dallas Observer readers may recall a series of articles that appeared in the summer of 1995 detailing the exploits of an out-of-control JP and the people who suffered from his abuse of authority. Among the allegations that surfaced against Jones were that he had a tendency to wrongfully arrest some people, while summoning others to his court when they had no cases filed against them. He improperly held mass truancy hearings in South Dallas schools and heard criminal cases that arose outside his jurisdiction. But it was his entanglement in the Clark family drama that nearly led to his undoing.
Sandra Clark, who declined to be interviewed for this story, is the ex-wife of longtime Dallas funeral director Nat Clark. Inez is his present wife. Nat and Inez own and operate the Clark Manor Funeral Home, a stone's throw from the funeral home that Nat and Sandra once owned and operated together (now called the Sandra Clark Funeral Home and Flower Shop). The two women grew to hate each other, largely because of a bitter child-support battle between Nat and Sandra that dragged on throughout the early '90s. "[Sandra] didn't take too kindly to the fact that a man walked away from her, left millions of dollars, and just said, 'To hell with you,'" claims Inez.
Yet on September 19, 1994, calmer heads seemed to prevail when Nat and Sandra settled their differences without going to trial. Nat agreed to pay $350 a month for the support of their two minor children.
But that same afternoon, two Dallas County deputy constables arrived at the Clark Manor Funeral Home armed with an arrest warrant for Inez. Judge Jones had issued the warrant, which alleged that Inez had threatened to harm Sandra Clark and her property. A perplexed Inez was placed in a squad car and immediately taken before Judge Jones. Sandra Clark had come to Jones' court about an hour earlier, seeking a peace bond against Inez--a judicial remedy akin to a restraining order. JPs do have the authority to issue peace bond warrants, but only if there is an immediate threat to someone's person or property--and that was not the case here.
In her complaint, Sandra alleged that she had received a phone call from the director leasing her funeral home who "telephoned me...to inform me that Mildred Inez Clark had been on my property several times, taking pictures and discussing incorrect information concerning my property."
Inez says that she did go to the funeral home on one occasion, but only to take photographs in connection with the child support case so the judge might see that Sandra earned enough money to support her sons. Besides, Inez took them from the sidewalk, she claims, and never trespassed.
Although Jones placed Inez under a peace bond and released her immediately, Inez felt she had been illegally arrested and took the matter up with just about anyone who would listen. She went to the Dallas District Attorney's Office and asked that Jones be indicted for official oppression; she added her complaint to the others filed against Jones with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct; she went to the FBI and the Commissioners Court, and sued both Jones and Sandra Clark in federal court.
In March 1995, a grand jury, considering the official oppression charge, heard Jones testify that Inez was laboring under a big misunderstanding: He had not issued an arrest warrant at all, but had only summoned her to his court. Conflicting testimony, however, from the arresting constable and Jones' clerk supported that Inez had, in fact, been arrested.
Inez suspected that the judge's true motive for having her arrested was his desire to help Sandra, who she claimed was the judge's friend. Jones swore under oath that he did not even know Sandra Clark before she appeared before him. However, Jones' own clerk, Gloria McMahon, would later testify that Jones' wife and Sandra Clark were old acquaintances from their days at Bishop College.
In 1995, when Jones was interviewed by the Observer, he claimed that Sandra had told him that Inez might harm her or her property. But, in the same article, Sandra denied Jones' account of their conversation. "No one said she was going to kill me. No one said she was going to beat me up. We didn't say that. I didn't want her arrested. I just wanted a restraining order."
Although the grand jury refused to indict Jones for official oppression, the panel believed Jones was lying and recommended to a second grand jury that he be indicted for perjury. "I don't think there is any question that he lied to the grand jury," first Assistant DA Norm Kinne told the Observer. But in May 1995, a second grand jury no-billed Jones on the perjury charge, as would a third grand jury.
Of course, that didn't stop Inez Clark. She pressed her grievance with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, hoping the judge would be removed from the bench. But in late 1995, the commission concluded that the judge had done nothing wrong--not intentionally, anyway. Jones was, however, ordered to educate himself by taking 20 hours of mentoring classes from a more experienced judge.
Undaunted, Inez Clark kept up her attack. On March 17, after a two-day trial in federal court, she finally got a modicum of satisfaction, but very little money. By finding that Jones and Sandra Clark had conspired to falsely arrest Inez, yet only awarding her $25 in damages, the jury must have believed that Inez Clark was little more than trifled with.
Inez had hoped the verdict would send a message to the voters of Dallas County that Judge Jones was a party to a conspiracy and had betrayed his public trust. But her timing couldn't have been worse. The primary election was held a week before her trial, and the electorate overwhelmingly gave its nod to Jones as its Democratic nominee for JP. Jones faces no opposition in the general election.
Like the Energizer bunny, Inez Clark is still going. She intends to file yet another criminal complaint against Jones based on the perjury she now claims he committed in the federal trial. None of her unflagging righteousness surprises Jones' attorney, Marc Richman. Coining Inez's relentless pursuit of Judge Jones as "the case from hell," he says, "Mildred Inez Clark is just one of those people who doesn't take no for an answer.
