Friday, December 11, 2009


It has been brought to my attention that after the original story, the Herald did in fact post the brief. I will now say with 100% certainly that if Tillotson chooses to sue me he will loose. He is a liar or a thief and is point blank stealing money from his client and costing the BISD taxpayers money. I hope and expect the BISD Board to vote to seek sanctions against Tillotson and his firm.

To make this easier for everyone, here is the Brief is the Tillotson brief..

Most of what I write here I already had saved in my computer. I write appellate briefs for law firms. I read virtually every Texas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinion. I sometimes keep data bases on issues. And for the record law firms can hire anyone including a mentally deranged former felon to write briefs. It is a matter between the law firms and their clients. I will admit I have not worked in months because I have been too sick.

I will say with 100% certainty Mr. Tillotson failed to argue the futility doctrine which is a defense to exhausting your administrative remedies. How nice, he fails to do his job and then Pena gets the blame.

You start with your strongest argument so as to be able to get the attention of the court.

In his brief he makes a big issue of Navarro (who may be a distant relative of Tilloston - see his bio page) being both being a witness and lawyer in the case. For legal authority he references none other than a Rule without the attending legal authority. Well here is the legal authority.

“We have said that "[d]isqualification is a severe remedy." Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 797 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex.1990). Disqualification is a measure that can cause immediate harm by depriving a party of its chosen counsel and disrupting court proceedings. In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 423 (Tex.2002). Thus, "[m]ere allegations of unethical conduct or evidence showing a remote possibility of a violation of the disciplinary rules will not suffice" to merit disqualification. Spears, 797 S.W.2d at 656. The fact that a lawyer serves as both an advocate and a witness does not in itself compel disqualification. See Ayres, 790 S.W.2d at 557-58; In re Chu, 134 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, orig. proceeding); May v. Crofts, 868 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, orig. proceeding). Disqualification is only appropriate if the lawyer's testimony is "necessary to establish an essential fact." TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.08(a). Consequently, the party requesting disqualification must demonstrate that the opposing lawyer's dual roles as attorney and witness will cause the party actual prejudice. Ayres, 790 S.W.2d at 558. Without these limitations, the rule could be improperly employed "as a tactical weapon to deprive the opposing party of the right to be represented by the lawyer of his or her choice." TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.08 cmt. 10 (stating that a lawyer "should not seek to disqualify an opposing lawyer by unnecessarily calling that lawyer as a witness").

“In this case, Joyce failed to demonstrate that any testimony McKnight might provide is necessary to establish an essential fact, as the rule requires

In Re Sanders: 153 54 (Tex. 2004)

“In order to prevent such misuse of the rule, the trial court should require the party seeking disqualification to demonstrate actual prejudice to itself resulting from the opposing lawyer's service in the dual roles”. See Ayres v. Canales, 790 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Tex.1990) (orig.proceeding) (citing TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.08 cmt. 10).

Tillotson’s argument that Navarro’s law firm should have been disqualified because Navarro was a witness is totally without legal foundation.

“Finally, the testifying attorney's law firm can continue to represent the client even though the attorney will testify, as long as the client gives informed consent. See TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.08 cmt. 8; see also Anderson Producing, 929 S.W.2d at 424; Spears, 797 S.W.2d at 658; In re Acevedo, 956 S.W.2d at 774 n. 2

Again the motto of every lawyer is “if you got the money, we got the argument.”

I defy anyone to explain the legal basis for Tillotson’s disqualification of Navarros’s law firm in light of black and white case law. I defy anyone to show where in the brief Tillotson identified the essential fact to which only Navarro could testify which caused Gonzales actual prejudice. You cannot not, and as a matter of law the argument is bogus and should be met with a request from BISD for sanctions.

Further, the rule applies before juries. The courts have long recognized that the lawyers can be witnesses and lawyers in hearing and matters only before the judge. In the case at bar, there was only a hearing officer.

The issue in law is not why BISD fired Gonzales, but if they had just cause for the reason cited. The facts which support the reason cited are not opinions or legal recommendations from Navarro, but the internal documents of BISD. Any testimony by Navarro as to the internal documents would be hearsay.

This argument is so bogus that if BISD’s lawyers do not move for sanctions, then they should be fired. Under Tillotson’s argument DA’s who investigate crimes could never prosecute the case. It is done every day. In clear terms Jeffrey Tillotson is a liar, cheat and unethical lawyer without any regard for right from wrong. My statement is based on his brief.

I will download the brief and submit it to the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court for disciplinary action. Why I go to the Texas Supreme Court which oversees the State Bar is about an unrelated matter and creating an evidentiary record that they cover-up corruption and unethical conduct by protected lawyers.

If Tillotson began his argument with an unethical argument and with a total disregard for well established law, what does that tell us about Gonzales’ defense. He has none. But he does have money to pay an attorney to make an argument. So goes the motto, “if you have the money, we have the argument.”

I remember clearly how all of you Gonzales nut jobs attacked me for pointing out Pena ignored the law by filing a premature lawsuit. Now after attacking me, you want Gonzales to go after Pena for the very reasons I explained from day one.

If any of you truly want Gonzales to win you will tell him to hire new counsel. You will tell him to have his new counsel send a notice of malpractice and fraud to Tillotson to get his money back. You will not, because until a federal court finds I am right you will encourage Gonzales to go bankrupt and then blame Tillotson in the end.

No comments: