Thursday, June 26, 2008


(EDITORS NOTE: I know I promised the petition. I have it in my computer in pdf format - I just have no idea how to upload it to google - willing to take ideas from the more technologically adept people - like maybe a 5 year old)

Judge Lopez proves once again the law will have very little if anything to do with her actions. Her decision to grant Yolanda de Leon a TRO to prevent the grant jury from seeing essential evidence of her alleged crime in my book is tantamount to an obstruction of justice.

In the petition at page 5 paragraph 15 the irreparable injury alleged is to her business reputation and the loss of business. This in her mind constitutes an injury to property. Before getting into the case law let’s look at this logically. I am an accountant, I have embezzled my client’s funds. Would not presenting evidence of said embezzlement to the grand jury hurt my professional reputation? Could you imagine everyone running to civil court seeking an injunction against DAs to prevent them from presenting evidence to the grand jury based on nothing more than they will loose business if they are indicted?

In this case, the evidence does not even have anything to do with Yolanda de Leon being an attorney. Her alleged actions were not taken as an attorney, they were taken as a private person, without regard for her profession. It would be like a doctor alleging, if you present the evidence that I ran over the guy when I was drunk then people will not hire me to be their doctor. Why such privilege for Yolanda de Leon?

Beyond this the courts have already rejected her argument. To help Villalobos along I am providing the name of the case he can use to get an immediate stay of the TRO from the court of appeals. In Re Graves, 217 S.W.3rd 744 (Tex. App. – Waco 2007)

The case law as to why you cannot get a TRO for injury to business reputation is as follows:

"The holding in Hajek follows from the principle that a temporary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on expression comes before a court with a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity. Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). In Keefe, the United States Supreme Court vacated a preliminary injunction that enjoined an organization from distributing leaflets criticizing the applicant's real estate business practices. Id. at 419-20, 91 S.Ct. 1575. The Court stated: "No prior decisions support the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism of his business practices in pamphlets or leaflets warrants use of the injunctive power of a court." Id. at 419, 91 S.Ct. 1575; see also Pirmantgen v. Feminelli, 745 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no writ) ("[P]rior restraints against leafletting or the distribution of pamphlets is particularly suspect.")."

"Although the specific damages sustained from defamation and business disparagement-related activity is often difficult to measure, it is nonetheless well established that this type of harm does not rise to the level necessary for the prior restraint to withstand constitutional scrutiny."

Brammer v. KB Home Lone Star, 114 S.W.3rd 101, 107 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003)

Judge Lopez has enjoined Villalobos from publishing the evidence to the grand jury, which is, prior restraint.

Yolanda appears to reason in her petition that publication to the grand jury of the so called list which got her in trouble is illegal and therefore the court should enjoin it. Her reason is it is illegal to publish the list, therefore it would be a criminal act to publish it to the grand jury.

Publication of child pornography is also a crime. I guess it is then a crime to present the evidence of child pornography to the grand jury as evidence the accused either looked at the child pornography or distributed it, thereby making securing an indictment impossible.

It is never illegal to publish to a grand jury evidence which is incident to a crime. Judge Lopez knows this, but the triviality of the law was not going to get in her way. If she has an ounce of integrity left in her body she will sua sponte void the TRO and then formally recuse herself. Until then the DA needs to file a mandamus to have the TRO voided.

The report in the Herald that Judge Lopez recused herself is simply false. Accuracy does not seem to be something the Herald is good at. Judge Lopez simply asked that a visiting judge be assigned to hear the temporary injunction. For reason, she did not check recuse, as was her option, she checked other.

Please I do not want to hear comments of - oh now you like Villalobos - no - I just have no use for judges who ignore the law and attorneys who use those judges to promote their own ends.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is just plain stupid. What a show. The judge is YDL buddy and attorney. What these women are doing is just wrong, maybe the judge is involved in this mess as well? I don't care how it's written, stated, nor looked at, YDL your day is coming sooner or later, but it's coming.