Saturday, June 21, 2008

AND THE SOAP OPERA IS ON - LET THE RACES BEGIN - ENJOY BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT LIFE IS ALL ABOUT - DISTRACTIONS AND VENDETTAS

IS VENDETTA PEREZ IN BED WITH CHILD MOLESTING PRIESTS AND EXTORTIONISTS OR JUST ON A VENDETTA?

Sometimes things are funny, my brother Charlie had just called me when I became aware of Vendetta Perez volley against me. I take it as a sign of honor that someone would take that much time to go into my background to destroy my reputation, while never once denying the claims I made against them. It is called a distraction and a vendetta. I read entire sections of the rant to Charlie and we both got good laughs. What Vendetta Perez, and the lawyer who helped him gather the information fail to understand is - people in the end will look to the substance of what has been written and form an opinion. I have zero concern that anyone will take this very seriously. They will assign its place in history with the same vendetta driven manipulations he put out about Adela Garza. Smart money would have said let it go, but then smart is not something you associate with Vendetta Perez. His wife needs to put him straight and tell him to let it go - this is my softball shot - the hardball will take no prisoners.

He says he is protecting his wife - the fact of the matter is all he is doing is prolonging how long people will be talking about this and thereby exposing his wife to more needless questions. On my blog I rejected every post which tried to bring his marriage into question - I never questioned his marriage - I questioned his integrity - it does not shock me that to distract from the question of his integrity he hides behind his marriage.

Here is a simple fact. When Chris Davis posted through a comment by Commissioner Atkinson suggesting Vendetta Perez was gay, he did not respond. This was a clear challenge to his marriage. He did not care they questioned his marriage. I questioned his motivation for his actions - vendetta against Adela Garza - This hit him where he cared - so he responded and like a little weasal hid behind an innocent woman and child.

I and I alone came to Vendetta Perez’s defense and charged at Atkinson like a bull in a glass shop. When Sanchez referred to Zavaletta as Peter Pan - I and I alone charged him on the issue like a bull in a glass shop. I and I alone am the only blogger who defended each of these gentlemen’s marriages by going after such comments. My comment as to Vendetta Perez was to question the totality of who he says he is, and not his marriage. My published track record on the issue, as opposed to any other blogger who cannot say the same, is to oppose such conduct.

I guess what irks me on this issue is, for 25 years I have marched and fought for gay rights. My first march was in Dallas in 1983. For 25 years I have fought and fought hard. I was ridiculed at work and called bobbett all of the time. In law school two professors told me if I took their course I would be failed because faggots were not welcome. In court in Hidalgo County Darryl Hester found no wrongdoing when a lawyer called me a fucking faggot and had to be restrained while swinging at me. I have been spat on by lawyers. I have had lawyers thrown lighted cigars in my face in the presence of judges. (In that case the judge just screwed the lawyer’s client in exchange for me not filing criminal charges on his friend - the women got about half the child support to which she was entitled) - I withdrew from the case before any final orders were signed and informed the commission on judicial conduct of what happened. I guess what I am saying - when it comes to calling people gay or questioning someone’s marriage on the issue - I am the only blogger with a track record of protecting people on the issue - either in court or in a blog -

I say to Vendetta Perez and his supporters - stop using his wife as a cover for his unethical conduct. I will not take lightly anyone questioning my documented history on the issue. It is not my problem that some people are still so ignorant that they believe Roman’s effeminate ways makes him gay. I know enough, based on knowledge, that being effeminate does not mean you are gay or being a muscle bound brute with a deep voice makes you straight. For the record, the latter are the biggest nessy bottoms you will ever meet. So do not impose your ignorance on me.

To continue with something simple. He makes a big deal that given my background I can never win the lawsuit against the City of Brownsville as it relates to prior restraint. In 1995, before the Texas Supreme Court I won my first mandamus - an emergency appeal against the judge. Grigsby et al. v. Coker, 904 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) - Mandamus on impermissible gag order. - This means prior restraint. I will stand on my proven track record and reject the legal advice of a 20 something who has a social science degree from UTB, which means a glorified highschool, and who has never held a real job or put himself on the line for his country or people.

The entire question begins with, Vendetta Perez printed article after article destroying Adela Garza’s character while failing to inform his readers he was working for her opponent, Dr. Silva. Now to be frank, if anyone believes anything Vendetta Perez says after such an incident, then do not read my blog - you are too stupid to understand reality. You will note he never denied this basic allegation. Instead he went into my background and manipulated facts and in some cases lied. Suing him, would only punish his wife - and for sure she is an innocent victim of Vendetta Perez. I am tempted to sue, not for money, but to get a jury verdict - but the only person who will feel the pain is his wife. I do not believe for one second he was thinking of his wife or his child, other than as an excuse or cover, when he posted his comments.

The most comical statement is the following: "You have to realize "Cervantes" that I was trying to assist you as a Dallas family-law attorney Mike McCurley tried to "help" you to seek mental help. I wanted you to go to the commission meetings and make sure all of the commissioners understood your argument against prior restraint." (Just curious, what information could he possibly have to think they did not understand the prior restraint issue. Look at the tape guys - Ahumada walked out of the executive session twice. During the meeting the camera guy focused in on Longoria when Ahumada interrupted a speaker. Longoria looked at Ahumada as if he was nuts - I think they got the message without the help and advice of Vendetta Perez. His assignment of self importance is a bit overstated - Troiani a licensed attorney certainly needs help from Vendetta Perez in understanding the law)

I do not read words, I read context and paragraphs. Sentences within a paragraph are to be related to one another. So the first couple of times I am reading the above paragraph I cannot make heads or tails of what does Mike McCurley have to do with prior restraint. I do not know if it is an attempt to mislead or if Vendetta Perez is just running loose like a drunk in a glass factory.

Vendetta Perez wants to hold himself off as some objective reporter - I will make that assumption. Based on that assumption it does not shock me to learn that Vendetta Perez would stand with someone who went into state district court, namely Mike McCurley and used the court to extort millions of dollars from would renowned pianist Van Cliburn. Mike McCurley threatened to produce for the press videos of questionable sexual acts between Van Cliburn and his former lover if Van Cliburn did not pay over millions to McCurley and his client. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-67775210.html

Obviously Vendetta Perez considers people like McCurley to be credible. If my readers find that people who extort money from wealthy people to be credible, then I lost that battle before it began. Also what is McCurley’s relationship to me - based on what you read you think he was some type family law attorney trying to help me. He was a hired gun to take me down. Vendetta Perez fails to tell you that. After the State Bar of Texas was forced to deal with McCurley’s attempt to extort money from Van Cliburn he was fired by the State Bar. He does not tell you that either.

He also fails to tell you McCurley hired a psychiatrist to diagnose me in absentia based on McCurley’s representations of me, and not based on ever having met me or having reviewed any of my medical records. This is what Vendetta Perez would call fair. If any of my readers believe such conduct is fair then I say you can move to Communist China where those who engage in political dissent are diagnosed mentally ill in absentia. Those type readers and Vendetta Perez would do well in Communist China.

Vendetta Perez begins his piece with a claim that he held in his response to give me a chance to retract misrepresentation, but yet he did not identify any of these so called misrepresentations. He never ever e-mailed me and said retract the following misrepresentations. The way it works is, if you want someone to retract a misrepresenation, you send them a letter or e-mail demanding same. He never made such a request because he could not.

The following is a point blank lie from Vendetta Perez. "In interesting points on the Indian’s meetings, I chidingly (sic) notified Bobby Wightman to make sure he knew the public comment section rules had not been changed it." Never ever happened. I learned of his comments when I read his blog. Remember he made these vendetta type comments after I outed him. On my blog I explained my position on this. No commissioner in his right mind, unless he is taking advice from Vendetta Perez, would put repeal of an ordinance on the agenda before consulting counsel during an Executive Session. Obviously Vendetta Perez believes a commissioner would do that, but I do not. He simply does not understand how city government and litigation works. So long as there is a majority willing to roll the dice on the litigation, the remainder have to go along. They are jointly the client - it would be a breach of ethics for one or three commissioners to come out against those who favor the litigation. It could be used as evidence against the city. Again Vendetta Perez does not understand ethics and ethical concerns. Again he speaks of things about which he has no knowledge.

On the flag issue, I made clear on my blog immediately after the Commission meeting wherein I raised the flag issue that the city was on solid ground when it comes to proper etiquette on the flag. His statement that I did not know the rules is just bizarre. I was the first and only person to post them to a blog.

http://brownsvillevoice.blogspot.com/2008/06/flag-debate-veterans-versus.html

http://brownsvillevoice.blogspot.com/2008/06/it-is-sad-and-unacceptable-that-city-of.html

The problem is, he does not read - he has a vendetta to get out so he fails to read I am not talking about the etiquette, I am talking about respect for those who have died defending the flag and at a time of war showing respect for them by elevating the flag to a higher level than the state flag.

Oh what happened to Mark McDonald who wrote the Observer piece - I am smart enough to only speak to reporters on the record - this means the interview was recorded. After McDonald was forced to admit to the Observer lawyers he fabricated entire sections of the article, he found himself working for someone other than the Observer. My brother denied nearly everything McDonald claims he said. On the issue of my family history - this was a bizarre theme McDonald created before the interview started. I made it clear to him my family history is meaningless to me. I also made it clear to him that when he tried to tie me to the famous author Cervantes that no one could possibly claim a linear link because Cervantes had one daughter who did not carry his name. When he asked me what sustains me and I said "faith." He laughed. The answer did not fit the bizarre picture he was trying to paint. Like I said, once the lawyers were all done with reviewing the evidence McDonald went to go work for someone else.

The State Bar issue is important. First, as to the case Vendetta Perez references with Judge Garza - (who for the record was well documented as opposing all dissent against the judiciary) he fails to state that as a result of the federal lawsuit, the State Bar dropped all charges. In my book that counts as a win. They found that my speech against the judge was protected. The issue was my comments about a corrupt judge. Now lets understand how corrupt Judge Garza was when it came to silencing claims of corruption against the judiciary. According to Vendetta Perez , Garza said the following: "Wightman attacks an ongoing state disciplinary proceeding." Judge Garza concedes there is an ongoing proceeding, but then according to Vendetta Perez goes on to say there is no evidence the State Bar intends to enforce the rules. This is how corrupt Judge Garza was - he admits there are ongoing proceedings, but then to get to a political result finds no evidence the State Bar intends to enforce the rules. Judge Garza had zero tolerance for dissent against the judiciary. It is of no shock to me Vendetta Perez would agree with zero tolerance in terms of dissent against the judiciary. Or is it he did not care about the facts, because he needed to have his vendetta against me for exposing his unethical conduct towards Adela Garza.

The second issue with the State Bar - lets be clear - when they sued me to have me disbarred they sued me on day 1, served me with the lawsuit on day 7, and secured a summary judgment on day 10. My answer to the lawsuit was not even due in court until 21 days after the first Monday following service. Does it shock anyone Vendetta Perez would find this fair? No - because he had no interest in the facts - he is about settling a vendetta. Does he tell you the judge I allegedly accused of wrongdoing dismissed the appeal? No because Vendetta Perez would not see this as a conflict of interest, given how we know he handled Adela Garza.

Why was the State Bar allowed to do what they did? People do not know that State Bar is controlled by the Texas Supreme Court. A man by the name of Daryl Jordon was at the Tower meeting in Dallas. Daryl Jordon has donated millions of dollars in free legal services to the Texas Supreme Court as it relates to the defense of the Texas Supreme Court’s policy of taking interest from lawyers’ clients’ accounts, without due process, and using the money to fund indigent representation. Did you know that - that if a lawyer is holding your money in an interest account you the client are not entitled to the interest. It is automatically garnished by the Texas Supreme Court for use in indigent care. (Or so it was 6 years ago - maybe things have changed)

Anyway the Tower meeting was a well documented meeting wherein Daryl Jordon, other State Bar attorneys, sitting judges, and public officials detailed a conspiracy wherein then Regional Administrative Judge Pat McDowell (he regularly attended the Tower meetings which dealt with how the Dallas Diocese would handled all of the child molesting lawsuits) was going to grant the recusal of the trial judge in the case. The jury had already awarded more than 100 million dollars in damages in the case. The goal was to have the trial judge removed from the case so that Pat McDowell, who was advising the Bishop, along with State Bar attorney Daryl Jordon, could then assign another judge who understood he was to grant a new trial in the case and thereby void the judgment.

I came to represent the whistle-blower in the case, Frank Sharpe. He had boxes and boxes of documents which could have taken down everyone at the Tower meeting. Frank is a mathematical genius who has a hard time communicating with people. I represented him in an emergency mandamus against the judge who aided in the conspiracy to steal his documents. Like so many other mandamus, I won that emergency appeal against the judge. In Re Frank Sharpe, (2001 WL 15974 (Tex. App. Dallas)) (January 8, 2001)- Trial court abuses discretion when it signs orders after it loses plenary jurisdiction

This opened the door to my suing the parties involved in the theft of the documents. The case was on the verge of trial. Daryl Jordon along with a lot of judges and other high profile lawyers were going to be destroyed if the case went to trial. On the even of the trial I was sued on day 1, served on day 7 and summary judgment granted on day 10. If you want to know the truth of the matter, my ex and still best friend John Marks was with me in the court room and I let out a sigh of relief.

I was no longer a prisoner to the most corrupt contemptuous profession in the world. The case remains in protracted RICO litigation. Every major law firm the State of Texas tried to hire to defend what happened has declined the money. This is why the State represents itself. I refused an offer to drop all RICO charges last year in exchange for them allowing me to apply for reinstatement. You see, I have no desire to return to the most vile profession in the world - I just want the truth to be told. Only with the truth being told do we have a chance to destroy the most corrupt profession in the history of mankind.

People, if I took myself seriously, which I do not, would I use Curious George as my moniker? As I have said before and will say again - the blogosphere has very little impact on anything. I am not trying to save the world. Sometimes as activists we can succeed. My track record shows I have succeeded in the area of prior restraint and in going after judges. A record which Vendetta Perez does not have. What we do know in the case of Adela Garza, he did not tell his readers his articles were based on his work for Adela Garza’s opponent, Dr. Silva. That is incredibly unethical. If after the Adela Garza mess, you can find a word of credibility in the writings of Vendetta Perez, then I lost the war with you before it began, and I invite you to only read his blog.

Ladies and Gentlemen I hope you have enjoyed the drama, and I am certain Vendetta Perez will continue with his drama - so I hope you will enjoy the show as this soap opera will continue. It is sad though he fails to see how this attorney who is helping him is manipulating him to his own political demise. It is sad that all he did here was to give his wife’s coworkers yet something else to harass her about at work. There is no doubt in my mind she is a loving and fine person and mother. She deserves better. Unfortunately, I think he will continue this to her detriment.

It comes as no shock to me that Vendetta Perez would get in bed with child molesting priests and people who extort money from world renown pianists because they are gay. Or is it just that he did not care who he got in bed with and with blindfolds on charged to his vendetta?

A small but significant summary of my track record.

PUBLICATIONS and PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Contributor: American Government Policies & Politics 3rd Ed. 1991
Harper Collins Publishers: Neal Tannahill and William Bedichek

Texas Lawyer: Good Intentions, Bad Ideas, August 30, 1993, pp.12-13

Flores v. Banner, 932 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. 1996, orig. proceeding)-
Mandamus on Objection to Former Judge

Grigsby et al. v. Coker, 904 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) -
Mandamus on impermissible gag order.

Flores v. Velasco, S.W.3d , (Tex. App.BDallas, 2001 - WL586897), (sitting judges who become former judges during course of litigation are subject to objection)

Keyser v. Kroger, 800 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Tex 1992)- Non-subscribers to workers' compensation system are subject to the prohibition against retaliation

In Re Frank Sharpe, (2001 WL 15974 (Tex. App. Dallas)) (January 8, 2001)- Trial court abuses discretion when it signs orders after it loses plenary jurisdiction

In re: Ann Thompson, (1998 WL 290219 (Tex. App. Dallas)) (June 5, 1998) - Indefinite order of abatement is an abuse of judicial discretion)

UNPUBLISHED

In re: Claire Hopkins, (Tex. App. Ft Worth)(Sept. 18, 1998) Stay Order issued pending mandamus - Medical Liability Improvement Act does not apply to unfair debt collection practices.

Flores v. Canales, (Tex. App. Dallas) (June 10, 1996)(Stay Order issued pending mandamus voiding trial courts TRO for want of jurisdiction in Election Contest)

Keyser v. Kroger, (Tex. App. Ft. Worth , 1994) Summary Judgment reversed on Special Exceptions

This does not include all of the appellate briefs I have written for attorney all over Texas.

No comments: