The Truth about My Opponent’s Lies

The truth is Cindy Burkett is lying and she knows it.

Cindy is desperate. She’s using debunked lies from 4 years ago.

Bob Hall cleared his name and the voters elected Bob Hall to the Texas Senate.

Voters didn’t elect a liar then, and they won’t elect a liar today!

Senator Bob Hall
Military Veteran

Cindy Burkett, a desperate liar


The Truth

The Lie

Bob Hall fought the IRS in court
and won!

Bob Hall had a dispute with the IRS. He went to court and cleared his name. He owed no taxes and the IRS issued a check to Bob!
See the Documents from the IRS that Clear Bob Hall of any Tax Lein Issues

Bob Hall didn’t pay his taxes.

In court, Bob Hall was cleared!

Bob Hall’s ex-wife recounted her fabricated stories about domestic violence when she testified in family law court.

See the Documents that clear Bob Hall of any allegations.

FALSEBob Hall was involved in a domestic violence dispute.


Documented Facts Prove Burkett is Lying

Perhaps you have received campaign mailers with the following allegations. Cindy Burkett has mailed these to voters to distract attention away from her very liberal voting record. The message she wants you to believe is a purposeful construct of lies designed to destroy my character and suppress my support for the election.

So let’s look at ALL the facts as supported by legal documents posted on our website.

  1. Bob Hall has a “History of Violence” This is a despicably vile and disgusting lie. There is no history – no record of any violence, much less domestic violence, in my past. Ms Burkett knew this was a lie when she sent only the “complaint” part of the file to the media. There was a single complaint, filed by my ex-wife 4 years after our divorce, but it was completely dismissed by the court. Ms. Burkett has the documents, which exonerated me, but she chose not to release those.

Ms. Burkett conveniently withheld the “final disposition” court document, whereupon after a hearing before a judge, the complaint was totally and completely dismissed because the judge found absolutely no basis for the complaint. The court records show the plaintiff (my ex-wife) accepted and agreed with the judge’s decision. The court records also confirm there were no other related complaints.

Okaloosa County takes domestic violence complaints very seriously. When a complaint (remember, a complaint is not a charge – it is simply a complaint) is filed, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is automatically issued on behalf of the plaintiff, and a date is set for a hearing before a judge. No evidence or testimony is required from the plaintiff for the TRO to be issued. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if the complaint is valid and warrants a “Permanent” Restraining Order or other action. The threshold for issuing a “Permanent” Restraining Order is very, very low. There need not be any physical evidence or witness testimony to convince the Judge of the need for a Permanent Order. If the Judges feels there is even a small “indication” that any one of the complaints may have validity, the judge can, and most often does, issue a permanent order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge notes his findings on a “Final Disposition Order”.

The handwritten note by the presiding Judge (on the Final Disposition Order in case #94-DR-2087 S) states “No Indications”, which means the Judge concluded there was absolutely no indication that any of the allegations the plaintiff made on the complaint form had any merit. Therefore, the Judge’s dismissal of case #94-DR-2087 S completely exonerated me, the defendant, of any wrongdoing.

This is the same issue that my previous opponent, Mr. Deuell even spent campaign funds to hire a private detective to find my ex-wife. Even though the private detective tried to coerce her into making damaging statements by pretending to be a police officer, she had nothing bad to say about me to him. In fact, all she had to say to the private investigator was that she wished me well and hoped that I won the race.

  1. 2. “ Unpaid taxes …”

This is also a lie. What is true is that I did stand-up and fight the IRS. The IRS and I disagreed on what I owed in taxes. I chose to fight them to keep more of what I legitimately earned, and I won. In each case, the IRS simply followed standard procedure in a contested case by filing a tax lien. The liens were automatically filed to allow the IRS to collect in the event they prevailed, or if I died before the contested matters were resolved, they could more easily keep my children from getting their inheritance. The IRS released every “tax lien” Ms Burkett referenced. The “complete court record” shows there is no history of taxes due to the IRS. In fact, in 2011, I received a refund from the IRS of more than $12,000 dollars and in November 2017 we received an IRS refund of $13.28. The IRS does not send refunds to people who owe them money!

What Ms. Burkett doesn’t want you to know is that she is terribly lacking in endorsements from conservative organizations. Ms. Burkett definitely does not want you to know that, in 2012, she was ranked, in an independent study by Rice University Political Science Professor Mark Jones, as one of the most liberal House members in Texas. Ms. Burkett would rather distract you with lies than have you know about her consistently very low or failing grades from all of the conservative watchdog groups in Texas.

  1. “Only Senator to Vote Against …”

Conservative values and principles underlie my votes. One of those principles is that there is never a right way to do the wrong thing. A second principle is that, if it is already covers by existing law, there is nothing to be gained by layering a new law on top of an existing law. In fact, it could negate or degrade the effectiveness of the existing law and actually reduce protection. A third is that the content on the bill is what becomes law, not the title. If the content violates constitutional rights, impractical to enforce or not a core function government it should not be a new law.

Just because a title sounds good does not mean that the bill even comes close to doing what the title says (e.g. Obama’s Affordable Care Act).

Each of these bills have compassionate titles and would appear, at first glance, to be well intended. However well intended, each bill had one or more fatal flaws that made it an attempt to do the right thing but it was being done the wrong way.

Each of the bills violated one or more of the conservative principles of good government. If the bills had actually done what the title said I could have and would have supported them.

Unfortunately, each one had one or more fatal flaws that were serious enough for me to not support its passage.

I knew that the optics of a no vote could be used against me, as is now being done. That is the main reason that I was the only Senator to vote as I did. I will never take a bad vote just to look good.

In the words of the Iron Lady herself…

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

– The late, great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

If twelve-year incumbent Cindy Burkett will purposefully lie like this to win an election, what else is she willing to hide from you about what goes on in Austin?

Sadly, Cindy Burkett’s own behavior shows she cannot be trusted.