Monday, April 26, 2010


HUD has opened a formal civil rights investigation against the Brownsville Housing Authority. Antonio Juarez and the Board ignored every complaint in favor of using taxpayer money to hire attorneys rather than simply stop the abuse. The complaint is being amended. I believe it has now reached the point of criminal conduct. It takes a lot but when a state agency or person within the state agency violates someone’s rights to the point the violations are intended as punishment for refusing to be bullied and for having filed the initial complaint, it raises to the lever of a federal crime. Antonio Juarez is a joke. We all know Rendon’s defense he was trying to clean up the abuses - no Rendon you are the abuse.


I have actually worked on an election contest. I defended a woman for 6 years. We should have lost, but won because the attorney who brought the election contest had no idea what he was doing and never brought forward the evidence. He did everything but what the law required of him.

In Texas the law puts the burden on the candidate bringing the election contest to prove the case, and the candidate who is being sued to defend against the claims of fraud. This is why fraud is so easy in Texas. If you do not have the money or skills to bring an election contest, it does not matter how obvious the fraud is, the election stands. If you are sued and the fraud is not real, you still have a duty to defend. In the hands of the wrong judge an election can be stolen using an election contest.

The Peña case is taking the same path as the one I defended. Lopez had no business signing anything - namely the order impounding the mail-ballots. As a matter of law all district court judges in Cameron County are recused from the case. . This is exactly what happened in the case I defended. I immediately took a mandamus against the Dallas County District court judge and his initial orders were voided.

Now, in this case it will probably not matter in any substantive way because the ballots need to be secured. But the burden still remains with Peña to inspect the ballots and prove his case. Peña by this point should have done this along with naming which ballots need to be voided. He has not. Unless Peña hires an attorney who knows what he is doing, this election contest will be lost on a lack of evidence.

People can complain all they want to every state official, but the law puts the burden on Peña. He does not seem to understand the law, or is unwilling to follow the law. Yes it is true the state can come in and prosecute those responsible for the fraud, assuming it happened, but under the law Ernie Hernandez will remain the winner. Why? Because a proper election contest has not been filed.

The good news is, no one in their right mind will be working the mail-ballots in the TSC and BND elections - note I said right mind. The bad news is, if Peña fails to properly prosecute this case, it will send a message to every corrupt candidate - you can steal elections with mail-ballots. At this time, I should note, other than very questionable numbers, there is no public evidence anyone has done anything wrong, and in fact Ernie Hernandez won the election fair and square.

The ball is in Ruben Peña’s court - will he hire a lawyer who knows what he is doing, or will he loose his case because he fails to understand the law?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The courts continue to struggle with the internet...

No Reporter Shield for Mere Blogger, N.J. Appeals Court Says
Mary Pat Gallagher

New Jersey Law Journal

April 26, 2010

Jersey's press shield law applies to online news reporters but not to bloggers merely claiming to be journalists, a state appeals court ruled on Thursday.

"Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media," the judges said in Too Much Media v. Hale, A-0964-09, the first N.J. appellate ruling and only the second in any state to address whether bloggers can invoke the newspersons' privilege to protect the identity of their sources.

The blogger's sources were not protected because she "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity," the court said.

Shelle Hale, of Washington State, was sued for defamation over statements she posted on, a website self-described as the "Wall Street Journal for the online adult entertainment industry." The statements were critical of Too Much Media, a Freehold company that provides software chiefly used by Internet pornography providers.

Hale accused Too Much Media of engaging in fraud and "illegal and unethical use of technology," violating New Jersey's Identity Theft Protection Act and profiting from the theft of e-mail addresses stolen by hackers in a 2007 security breach.

Discussing a competitor's lawsuit against Too Much Media, she wrote that the company's principals "may threaten your life if you report any of the specifics."