Monday, March 30, 2009

JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS ON MY MIND, THE MAYOR, BISD, AND JUDGE MIGDALIA LOPEZ

THE MAYOR:

Just let it go - With the clarifications from DA Villalobos about the impact the conviction of the mayor will have on his service, it is now clear the mayor will serve out his term. We are looking at two years to complete the trial process and appeal. Until then, the mayor is free to stay put. Why should he resign? He has two years to bring the weir dam to fruition. If he succeeds no one is going to care about the conviction, assuming it happens. All people will ever remember about Mayor Ahumada is that he brought the most important economic development in the history of Brownsville to Brownsville. So again, I say let it go and move on. So long as the City Commission has us focused on the mayor, wherein we remain powerless at this point, we will not be focused in on the City Commission.

BISD:

Tuesday night the Board will consider findings against Gonzales. Maybe they are just preliminary findings - who knows - the announcement is not actually that clear. See item # 35.
But here are two interesting items- 26 and 28 - It appears $186,300.00 is being added to the budget for Special Services to pay for outside psychological services. Yes, everything is fine an dandy in Special Services. A child for whom I demanded ADHD testing in September has now been put on medication. Special Services ignored every complaint by the parent. The ARD meetings are a waste of taxpayers money. A pediatric psychologist treating the child identified the problem and has prescribed the appropriate medicine. So maybe, just maybe, BISD has to hire outside experts because their in house staff are morons incapable of doing their job.

In September I gave the principal at Oliviera a hard time for the mismanagement of this child. I can tell you this child has no strong advocate than the principal at Oliviera. He has turned out to be a god sent for the child. The problem remains 100% with Special Services. For months the parent has been demanding an evaluation for ADHD - Special Services said no hell no or simply does not know how to conduct such an evaluation - Now, months later, the child is on the medication and in 24 hours the parent saw a more focused child. This delay is sad beyond human comprehension. The father has asked that I prepare a formal complaint to the TEA. Again the problem is not with the staff at Oliviera, the problem is with the incompetent management of Special Services.

JUDGE MIGDALIA LOPEZ

This so called jurist has been in the news a lot lately. I did not know until I read it in the Herald, the Commission on Judicial Conduct has opened an investigation against Judge Lopez for her TRO issued for De Leon. In my case they have opened an investigation against her for her mishandling of my grand jury referral related to the BISD La Pampa Affair, and the Willacy county mess.

This is where it gets interesting. Did Judge Lopez tell the judge in her expungement proceedings, related to the Willacy County indictment against her, that the Commission on Judicial Conduct has opened an investigation against her related to the indictment, and the claim she abused the grand jury process?

She certainly would have had a duty to inform the judge of same, otherwise the appearance is she is trying to destroy evidence being sought by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. This not good.

The other thing is the contempt the judge overseeing the expungement hearing has demonstrated for the judicial process. If you have been following the story, a private citizen who took out an ad basically alleging wrongdoing by Judge BaƱales when he dismissed the indictment against Judge Lopez, was dragged into court and ordered jailed when she refused to answer questions about her political ad.

I have done a lot of successful expungement hearings and have never called a witness. This got me thinking so I went to the statute to see what could possibly cause someone to believe they need a witness to win an expungement. I found one provision related to expunging the record related to a dismissed indictment.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii) the court finds that the indictment or information was dismissed or quashed because the presentment had been made because of mistake, false information, or other similar reason indicating absence of probable cause at the time of the dismissal to believe the person committed the offense or because it was void;"

Under this provision I can see maybe calling a witness to prove mistake, false information, or other similar reason indicating absence of probable cause at the time of the dismissal to believe the person committed the offense. But it is not conceivable that the witness would be a private citizen simply speaking out against the dismissal of the indictment. The witness would have to be some who is tied to the evidence presented before the grand jury.

This was a black and white violation of Blanca Rosas constitutional right to speak against the corruption within the judicial branch. While she cannot sue the judge, because judges are immune from suit even for criminal conduct while on the bench, she can sue Migdalia Lopez, and Noe Garza Jr., for conspiring with the judge to violate her civil rights.

Many people do not know, but judges seem to feel that they can run roughshod over the rights of parties not represented by counsel, or witnesses not represented by counsel. The DA in Willacy County should have filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena on Blanca Rosas. During the hearing to quash Noe Garza Jr., would have been required to state the based for the witness. He had none, other than to intimidate Ms. Rosas for her political speech. You will not find the ACLU coming to her defense - the ACLU is embroiled in its own controversy trying to silence their own Board Members and staff.

When a witness is asked a question a common objection would be, "Object relevance?" A judge should then order the asking counsel to state the relevance of the question. If he/she cannot the objection should be sustained. I can assure you judges find what I just described to be nonsense.

When the judge holds the witness in contempt for refusing to answer the question, the lucky witnesses find a lawyer and sue the asking attorney, and their client for conspiracy to violate their civil rights. Brownsville has yet to have its first case along these lines, but somehow I am certain it will arrive sooner than later.

The one time this happened to me and my client in Dallas, the Administrative Judge personally ordered me released from jail and the appellate court immediately removed the judge from the case under a mandamus request I filed. The law matters - but it is hard to enforce the law when you have attorneys too cowardly to stand-up to a hopelessly inept and corrupt judiciary.

I will be informing the Commission on Judicial Conduct of Migdalia Lopez’s attempts to expunge the evidence they are seeking. I am not saying she has done anything illegal, but in the event she did not inform the trial court of the investigation, it is better to be safe and report the events.
Here are the articles related to Migdalia Lopez.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/attorney_96298___article.html/judge_trial.html

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/lopez_96261___article.html/attorney_rosas.html

Ignorance runs the agenda of morons - more on this later in the week - also more credit card fraud within the City of Brownsville

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Bobby. Your site is the only one with reliable info.
Thanks again and keep them coming

U. Rock