Monday, June 16, 2008


Unfortunately some people love to comment on things about which they have no knowledge. So I have decided to give a little lesson in how city government works. Contrary to the view of one, the City of Brownsville does not come to a stand still when it receives a demand letter threatening litigation. When you pin a cat into a corner, you tend to not get the result you are looking for.

As to my demand on the city, it was designed to allow the city commission to get through next Tuesday’s meeting. The city attorney cannot act on his own. City commissioners are not going to act until they are advised by their attorney, namely Jim Goza. This is where a basic knowledge of how city government really works is important before making stupid petty vindictive comments. Under the rules Jim Goza or his trusty sidekick will not even advise the city commission on my demand until Tuesday during their executive session. Given this simple basic function of how the city works, how is it possible that anything would even appear on Tuesday’s agenda when the city commission has yet to be advised on the matter?

Further, if you go back to my original demand letter, I left the door open for the city commission to respond to my demand after having been afforded an opportunity to be advised by their counsel. Again only morons try to put a cat into the corner. My entire approach recognizes the manner in which the city government works. You have to wait for a meeting so the commission can be advised before they can act. It would be reckless for a commissioner to put anything on the agenda concerning repeal of an ordinance before first being advised by counsel. A simple letter from Mr. Goza that a commissioner will put on the agenda a repeal of the offending ordinance is all it will take to stop any litigation at this time. It will have to be passed at the next meeting of course. Again what is the point of pinning a cat in the corner, and then complaining when you get scratched.

Anyway since, one, has no knowledge of how the city government works, I thought a lesson would be in order.


Brownsville seems to have a new edge on dirty politics. I may or may not like Cisneros politics - but I know I do not like what happened to him with the video. I hope he pursues whomever did the videotaping and whomever paid for the videotaping. I think it is in every citizen’s best interest that we support Commissioner Cisneros along these lines, politics aside.

But dirty politics does not end with the City Commission. I do want to run for BISD. But like I said I will need a team which understands grassroots politics to help me. I am looking. I have not raised any money or officially announced. I have not spent money. I have met with several senior citizens to get their take on my campaign, and what I have learned is they just want to know if it is true Obama is a Muslim, which he is not. I was never able to get the conversation beyond Obama and presidential politics - it was very, very frustrating.

With me when it comes to Roman Perez, I am not sure I believe him when he says his name is Roman Perez. The point being I am not sure I believe a word he says.

On May 13, 2008 he made the following comments about Sergio Zarate "Item 30 of Tuesday night's Brownsville City Commission meeting brought up a name that is unfamiliar to this blog...Sergio Zarate." "What troubled me about the process was the name of Sergio Zarate. I do not know who he is but it seems to me he had extra pull in discerning who received the contract."

Although on May 13, 2008 Roman the Vendetta Perez stated he did not know of this Sergio Zarate. On June 13, 2008, all of a sudden he is praising him and now claiming they met in April.
"Sergio Zarate falls into that category. I met him for the first time at a Brownsville Union Coalition forum in April."

By itself none of this would matter except that I am concerned that for the second time he is trying to play two different candidates for public office without an ounce of concern for conflicts of interest. Vendetta Perez the hermaphrodite (it is no longer a joke once everyone knows you are married assuming that is not a lie) has floated the name of Sergio Zarate to replace Susan Galvan. He now tells me Galvan is not running and that I might consider another easier target than a run for an open seat.(An open seat is always the easiest target) Again I do not know if any of this is true, I am just repeating what he has said. It seems to me he either has convinced Zarate to hire him to work on the campaign or is trying to get Zarate to hire him to work on his campaign at the same time he is soliciting information from me about my campaign and trying to give me advice, which I would never take anyway.

Again with Vendetta Perez who knows when he is telling the truth about anything. Who chooses a name for themselves like vendetta unless their personality is that of someone who goes on vendettas. I would submit his near psychotic obsession with Adela Garza, and the Atkinson family.

I tried to make it clear to him in a polite way I have no interests in playing endless games of 50 questions in endless e-mails. He has this notion that if you respond to him in an e-mail that makes you friends. Every time he would use the term "my friend" it would send chills up my spine because I felt like I was about to have a stalker following me.

Anyway I specifically told him in an e-mail I had no desire to give him advice about whether or not someone was threatening him. To Vendetta Perez this means, "okay here is my question." When I tell you no, and you persist, I consider that licence to go public with the discussions - especially when it goes to trustworthiness.

According to Vendetta Perez he was advising Dr. Silva against Adela Garza. Now I ask you my devoted readers, would you have considered that relevant when reading his endless tirades against Adela? According to Vendetta Perez, Dr. Silva was well aware of what he was doing and considered it perfectly acceptable. Again I have no way of knowing if he is telling the truth - but if he told me the truth it spoke volumes about Dr. Silva’s character. So I say to Sergio Zarate - if you are in bed with the hermaphrodite Vendetta Perez proceed with caution because if I do run I will make it an issue as to your character. For now I presume you are an honorable man, and I am just dealing with the delusions of Vendetta Perez.

According to Vendetta Perez, he was either a partner or employee of James Zavaletta when he did some editing work on Adela Garza’s political web page. In his stories he cannot seem to make up his mind if he was a partner or employee. To James I do not know if any of this true because when it comes to Vendetta Perez, I do not believe him when he says his name is Roman Perez and he is married. James your side of the story will be unedited if you choose to respond.

Anyway apparently James and Vendetta Perez are no longer working together. Something happened when Vendetta Perez chose to help Dr. Silva against Adela Garza. I have no reason to believe James had any advanced notice of Vendetta’s actions. In my book when you have a client who has hired you for work related to a political campaign, you do not even accept the phone calls of her opponent. According to Vendetta Perez all he did for Adela was some simple editing.

He also claims that everyone but me with whom he has discussed this matter has told him he acted perfectly ethical and Adela has no reason to be mad at him. I would like to meet these sociopaths. You are reporting as news reasons not to vote for Adela Garza at the same time you are working for her opponent and that is not unethical? At least James Zavaletta had the integrity to let us know he was shutting down commentary until after the elections because he was involved in the process.

So here is the so called threat Adela Garza made on the phone to Vendetta Perez. I do not know if any of this is true - for all I know Adela Garza never heard of Vendetta Perez

"Roman, This is Adela Garza. I just got some very disturbing news today.....I am very disappointed in you guys. I feel that I was your customer..... If you were going to switch sides, you should have told me. What you all did was unethical at the very least...You should have stated loyal to me...We'll take care of it. I am very disappointed in you guys. Very disappointed."

I read nothing into this other than - she will tell people not to hire James Zavaletta or Roman Perez - his take on it was "If felt very godfatherish." Now that is melodrama. As a queer I know melodrama - it is in our genes. But again I do not know if any of this is true, and I have no confirmation of anything from Adela Garza.

If I take Roman’s story as he told it, he was incredibly unethical by not informing his readers he was advising Dr. Silva at the same time he was reporting as news and opinion his opposition to Adela Silva. This type dirty politics has to stop. What happened to Adela and Cisneros was wrong. I take pride in the fact I will always standup for the victims whether I know them or like them. Wrong is wrong - Vendetta Perez is now out of yet another closet - are there more?

That will depend how far he pushes people with his endless vendettas and unethical conduct. I do not care one iota people are gunning for me - my life is an open book - hey you can come take a picture of me naked on the beach - but given the dirty politics of this town sooner or later someone is going to pay to follow Vendetta. It will not be me because that is not my style and I would find it abhorrent, but sooner or later someone will if he pushes them far enough. Since I have nothing to hide, and I know my butt looks good on camera, have it with me.

I have to ask you guys - the official picture I use to insure people know the post is from me and not someone trying to pass as me is "Curious George." Why "Curious George?" Because I am hopelessly curious and always getting into mischief. We choose names which reflect who we are. Who chooses Vendetta and Hermaphrodite as the moniker which they want people to think of when they read their writings? The moniker we choose for ourselves reflects who we are.


Chris Davis said...

I read this post and I still don't know what it's about.

Something to the effect of BWC running for BISD and Roman Perez as his campaign manager?

Guess only the Shadow knows.

Anonymous said...

i wish u luck mr. cervantez. so u think that roman is vendetta. what a name!!! to my knowledge i do not think that sergio zarate would hire roman. he is a smart man and he is running for good reasons for bisd...

good luck with your campaign.

BobbyWC said...

I do not believe in running for the sake of running - people who do that are doing it for power and not to make a difference.

If it is true Galvan will not seek reelection then one victory is in place.

I will not run against anyone I believe is running for the right reasons and who I believe will serve the students.

So maybe it is time Zarate come forward with his agenda and confirm who will be helping him in his campaign. He may find I will support him -

It is about ideas and the children and not who holds the power

Bobby WC

Unknown said...

I do not believe him when he says his name is Roman Perez and he is married."

I did meet his lovely wife and their adorable child. And, I'm sure if she read this post, she's surely upset upon reading your insinuation.

I do not wish to get in the middle of a blogger battle, but that part kinda stings.

BobbyWC said...

You missed the point MZ - it was to demonstrate the total lack of credibility and only that -

what stinks is when a blogger uses his/her blog to destroy a political candidate while failing to inform his/her readers he is advising the opponent - which goes to my point of a lack of credibility

I thought long and hard about the piece because bloggers eating their own will hurt the blogosphere - but when a blogger makes themselves part of the story then you are not in a spat with a fellow blogger you are reporting a story.

The BV has no sacred cows - this is especially true when dealing with fellow bloggers. You will note I commended James Zavaletta for pulling himself out of the blogosphere during the campaign.

This is the same as to why you originally removed El Roci from your link list - it was a legitimate story which had nothing to do with the blogger

I keep out of personal lives - which is why other than yours I rejected every post made to this story which addressed personal lives - I found them to be a distraction and unwarranted - I did not want to feed any unjustified image

The issue was and remains credibility - he failed to disclose his conflict between Adela and Dr. Silva - this is not the first time I have covered this theme - I made a big loud bang over being paid to write for Sanchez - Sanchez has appeared to have stepped up to the plate on the issue - and for the better

Further, his manipulation as to Sergio Zarate also raised this as to how he intends to handle potential candidates. It is newsworthy -

being a fellow blogger does not make you off limits - unless bloggers are speaking to non-issues about personal lives - which as you know I was the first and loudest recently to demand that privacy be afforded to bloggers when they make personal decisions.

Our personal lives and distractions about us will always be off limits to the BV - but when a blogger plays someone like Adela the way he did - it goes to trustworthiness and a comment, which brings his entire person into question, is in order.

But then since when have two editors ever agreed on the meaning of newsworthiness?

I hope he moves on and learns something from the experience.

Unknown said...


I know what it was you were trying to demonstrate, but insinuation is not fact. Therefore, the risk remains that you've potentially brought a family member into a discussion that has nothing to do with the issue.

That's all I was trying to say.


BobbyWC said...

I will agree bringing in family members would be personal and out of bounds, unless they are direct beneficiaries of the conduct.

I was not insinuating anything - it was a generalized statement about credibility - I accept different people will interpret it differently - but in interpreting it they should consider the source of the comment.

on the issue of insinuation - when CD allowed Charlie Atkinson to play such a game on Roman (I will not repeat what was said - regulars to the blogs know what was said) I went after Atkinson for a cheap shot.

It was a generalized statement about who he is and his credibility - with the exception of yours, because you are a fellow blogger, I rejected every post which tried to take it in that direction - in part because it would have put validity of his marriage in question - which was not my point

I did not want it to be the focus away from the issue of credibility - I did not need the distraction to take from the issue - his failure to disclose he was working for Dr. Silva while he was bad-mouthing Adela -

No one in Brownsville or the blogoshere promotes the dignity of being yourself or gay more so than I do - the notion I would try and use it as a distraction to hurt someone's credibility or a family member is simply absurd.

For me it is interesting that I am challenged for being out, and now for trying to make light of such an important issue. I guess this is the new meaning of being BI

Being in the closet leads to serious mental illness and sociopathic tendencies. It kills innocent people with the spread of HIV and other STD's - it destroys children whose parents loose the ability to love their chidlren because of the mental illness attendant to being closeted. The devastation to the person and family is overwhelming. It is not a matter to be used as a weapon.

There was no insinuation. No one has been more out on this issue than me - I take the ridicule because the issue is too important to be ignored.

It was a general statement as to the totality of his credibility and had nothing to do with the legitimacy of his marriage.

In fact the one and only time I have discussed this issue with Roman was at the first meeting of Imagine Brownsville where we met - I congratulated him on being a stay home dad and said I found it to be cool.

We all perceive people differently - when I met him the first time I had an opinion of him - we as humans do that - everyone has a different opinions of different people - we see different things - you see one thing to be insinuated I saw a character flaw - (I guess what has me irked is after all I have published on the issue and the way I have put myself out their on the issue you would think I would make light of such an issue - words in part have meaning based on what you know about the speaker)

When Charlie Atkinson made that insinuation about him, I nailed Atkinson - I just do not see people that way - I look to character -

I know enough that the most menly men in the gay community are the biggest queens you will ever meet in the bedroom - but you would not know it by appearance or voice - my point being - appearance and voice tell me nothing about people - their character tells me everything (

Now it is possible the character flaw I saw that day (Imagine Brownsville) has influenced my overall opinion of him - the day he talked about taking over the Recall Ahumada matter, I knew he was V -

Words by themselves have no meaning - their meaning in part comes from the speaker - who that speaker is - ads meaningful and purposeful meaning to their words.

Bobby WC