Wednesday, February 11, 2009

GONZALES FILES LAWSUIT IN SEARCH OF FAVORABLE FORUM - AS AN EXTREME ACT OF INSULT TO JUDGE BEN EURESTI AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

When a plaintiff uses unethical acts to choose one particular judge over another it is called forum shopping. "This case arises out of a deliberate circumvention of the random assignment of cases in a county in which eight district courts preside." "search of a court perceived to be sympathetic, subverts random assignment procedures that are in place in many multi-court counties and is an abuse of the judicial process. This type of conduct, if tolerated, breeds disrespect for and threatens the integrity of our judicial system."

In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.1997) (orig. proceeding).

This is exactly what happened when Hector Gonzales authorized his attorney to file an Intervention Cross-Plaintiff action in the Rendon action. The above case is a sanction case wherein the lawyers involved in the conduct were sanctioned. The law prohibiting Gonzales’s lawsuit is so black and white and well established there can be no question that Gonzales’s attorney did same because he has no expectations that Judge Ben Euresti will allow the triviality of the law to be a guide in his rulings.

The Four Board Members should move for immediate dismissal of the intervention and request sanctions. They then should use the sanctions order as a basis for immediate discharge of Gonzales for cause. He can then sue Peña for malpractice.

I have been on the fence about filing a complaint against Judge Euresti for his conduct in the Rendon case. There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Euresti would sign his own death warrant. This is why lawyers like Neece and Peña have no problem seeking him out as a favorable forum for their clients. I will be putting the judicial complaint against Judge Euresti in the mail today.

Back to the facts. Neece secured an improper TRO on no evidence from Judge Euresti for the benefit of Rendon. He filed a similar lawsuit for Antonio Juarez. Judge Leal would not play the game so Neece could not secure a TRO for Juarez. BISD then removed the lawsuit to federal court. Ben Neece then abandoned the lawsuit for all practical purposes.

As of Friday last Neece had taken no action to secure a TRO from federal Judge Hanen for the benefit of Antonio Juarez. Why? Because unlike in Judge Euresti’s court where evidence and legal authority are not required, Judge Hanen would require that Antonio Juarez take the stand and swear under oath to his personal knowledge of the alleged bribery and contract rigging.

Even Ben Neece knows enough to know Judge Hanen would have issued major sanctions when Juarez failed to deliver evidence based on personal knowledge. The truth would be out, and this is why Neece has effectively abandoned the lawsuit. I cannot help the facts. How does Juarez go from alleging he needs a TRO to taking no action on his lawsuit? - fear of a judge who will enforce the law -fear of the truth coming out.

Gonzales filed what is known as an intervention. I will allow my readers, (this is mostly for Judge Euresti, BISD’s lawyers and Peña) to read the case law on the issue and to form their own opinion. The key is the following. "The party who seeks to intervene in litigation that is pending in a trial court must show a legal or equitable interest such that he would be entitled to recover in his own name to the extent of relief sought."

Gonzales has no equitable interest in the Rendon suit such that he is "entitled to recover in his own name to the extent of relief sought." Gonzales lawsuit is at best only related to the Rendon lawsuit because both are suing BISD for matters related to personnel issues.

I will give this to Ben Neece, unlike Peña, he had enough sense to file the Juarez lawsuit in a separate lawsuit, as opposed to an intervention.

Two things need to happen at this point if Judge Euresti wants to save what is left of his reputation. He needs to recuse himself from the entire case based on the insult Gonzales brought upon his court and the judiciary. He then needs to refer Pe a for sanctions. This is a black and white case of forum shopping. Peña must be sanctioned and Ben Euresti must take the lead on the issue or be forever known as the Cameron County judge unethical lawyers seek out for favorable rulings. If Judge Euresti fails to recuse himself from the Rendon lawsuit the message to the people will be clear - he can be relied upon as the object of forum-shopping.

FOR THOSE INTERESTED HERE IS A GOOD SUMMARY OF THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A PARTY MAY INTERVENE IN A PENDING LAWSUIT

"The party who seeks to intervene in litigation that is pending in a trial court must show a legal or equitable interest such that he would be entitled to recover in his own name to the extent of relief sought; or, if he were the original defendant, he would be able to defeat recovery, in part or in whole. King v. Olds, 71 Tex. 729, 12 S.W. 65 (1888); Wilson v. County of Calhoun, 489 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ .App.--Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.); 44 Tex.Jur.2d, Parties, § 44. The sufficiency of the petition in intervention is tested by its allegations of fact on which the right to intervene depends, and the petition will fail if no justiciable interest, legal or equitable, is alleged therein. Mulcahy v. Houston Steel Drum Company,402 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Civ.App.--austin 1966, no writ); Watkins v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Rockwall, 53 Tex.Civ.App. 437, 115 S.W. 304 (1908, no writ); 44 Tex.Jur.2d, Parties, § 60, § 61 (1963).

To entitle a person to intervene in a pending suit, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show an interest in the subject matter of the litigation '. . . greater than a mere contingent or remote interest . . ..' Beall v. Helm, 50 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1932, writ dism'd). The right to intervene is subject to wide discretion by the trial court in judging the sufficiency of an opposing party's motion to dismiss the petition of the intervenor. Armstrong v. Tidelands Life Insurance Company, 466 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Roberson v. Roberson, 420 S.W.2d 495 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston (14th Dist.) 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jones v. English, 235 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1950, writ dism'd). In testing the sufficiency of the facts alleged by the petitioner in the petition for intervention, the facts so alleged should be construed along with the allegations of fact set out in the pleadings of the person who resists the petition in intervention. Schnick v. Morris, 24 S.W .2d 491 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1929, writ ref'd)."

National Union Fire v. Pennzoil, 866 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.App. —Corpus Christi 1993)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a smokescreen, a lawsuit for defamation of character? You have to be of good character for that to work. He's hoping this will stop the investigation. What about all the employees who were moved or proposed for termination by him. What about all the defamation he caused them and their families. Look back at the archives and re-read all the unjust accusations that he threw at people and the devastation it caused their families. Now he has the audacity to claim that these elected officials caused him grief and emotional stress and he needs 10 million dollars to feel good about himself again. Whatever! The shoe is on the other foot now and he is on the hot seat. There are many who hope to see him burn. I for one want the investigation to continue to and the truth to be told. If he is not guilty of anything, we should all apologize to him and to the city of Brownsville, however if he is guilty of misappropiation of funds ,as he has previously called it, turn up to heat to full blast and lets get to the truth, for the truth will set us free. p.s.Use the search mode and enter Hector Gonzales indictment, and re read some of the previous Tom Foolary out Outstanding Citizen Hector Gonzales has been up to.

B. Clean

BobbyWC said...

I agree B-Clean - lets get to the truth - he wants to accuse Board Members of wrongdoing and claims to have filed criminal complaints - okay then tell us who did what and when - but I am not buying into these veiled threats to go public if they do not do as he askes.

Bobby WC