Tuesday, December 23, 2008

MAYOR PAT ALMIGHTY PLAYS "WHO'S ON FIRST

To my disbelief the check saga with Pat Almighty continues in Wednesday’s Herald. I was not planning on posting Wednesday other than the holiday videos, but given the mayor appears to have hung himself again, a comment is needed.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city_93010___article.html/ahumada_check.html

With a few modifications and one spelling error I am basically reposting my comments on the issue as they appear in the Herald. "Based on legal advice, I should not comment any further until this investigation is concluded to avoid creating confusion as to what is or what is not," the mayor said."

TOO LATE:

"Ahumada has said that the check could have been deposited in error, if city staff mistakenly gave him the check for travel reimbursement or the like."Plausible, except the story says he deposited the check into his personal business account. Why would you deposit a reimbursement check into your business account (appraisal business) instead your personal account?


If you have never run a personal business this may not be obvious to you, so I understand. Your business account is for business funds, not private funds. When I go to the VA in SA in early January for my presurgery appointment to have my previous carpal tunnel surgery corrected, the VA will give me a travel reimbursement for the trip from Brownsville to SA. After leaving the VA I will go to my bank and deposit the money into my private account, not my business account. Why you ask, because funds which go into my business account are recorded as income to the business. Reimbursement by the city to Pat Ahumada for city related travel is not income to his appraisal business. This is why his claim is not credible.

Also remember the press release from the Police Department. On the day the mayor deposited the check Brown was taking him to the airport. He told Brown to wait at his house and he would be back. You are on the jury, you ask yourself - a friend is taking you to the airport but you need to go to the bank first, do you "A" ask the friend to wait at your house while you go to the bank, or "B" ask your friend to stop at the bank on the way to the airport. People who believe in "B" would then assume that the mayor asked Brown to remain at his house because he did not want Brown around at the bank if the teller pointed out the check was not in the mayor's name.

For a jury to believe the mayor they would have to believe he [1] forgot he put in a request for travel reimbursement for this amount, and [2] that before going on a trip for city business he deposited the check for travel reimbursement.Blaylock needs to put a lock on the mayor's lips.Given how I know juries work, some jury members, such as some readers herein, will find the mayor's explanation plausible. I do not, but then again that is the nature of the jury system.

The mayor can add credibility to his story by asking the city to release to the Herald invoices for previous travel which show reimbursement at this level in the past, and his requests for reimbursement for travel in November and October which would show the mayor put in for reimbursement at these levels. If such documents exist then the mayor's argument seems even more plausible. If the documents do not exist, then the mayor would have been better off remaining silent.We are still waiting for the mayor to release his bank statements which show the money was removed from his account in early December for reimbursement to the city. For me it is not when the city received the money back, but when the bank removed the money from his account. Again it is plausible the bank lead the mayor to believe the money was given back to the city because it was deducted from his account, but not refunded to the city.

How does the mayor fix this misperception - just turn over his bank statements. He can print them out today from the computer. The BV would be more than willing to post bank statements which show the bank debited the funds from his account in early December as he alleges.The more the mayor speaks the worse it looks. The Herald needs to ask Cabler if the city has ever given the mayor a reimbursement check any where near $26,000.00. Because if they have not then the amount should have been a red light to the mayor.Blaylock needs to but an apple in the mayor’s mouth.


The discussion which follows by other bloggers will be a reflection of a possible jury pool. Different people will interpret these facts differently, which is exactly what happens in a jury room.


As the day progresses, after 5 p.m I will post more Christmas youtube videos. There will be more on Thursday.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Great – I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your website. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs and related info ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Quite unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Nice task.. cheap car insurance