Tuesday, May 25, 2010


I am waiting on some court transcripts before I comment much further on the matter with the City of Brownsville. I will say this - I have overnighted documents to the Texas Supreme Court which has as its purpose the removal of Judge Dick Alcala. His contempt for the law is beyond extraordinary. The case will move into federal court here in Brownsville and DC. There will be two separate cases. The DC case will be seeking $250,000.00 in damages each from the City of Brownsville and Eileen Leeds and her law firm. Her law firm will spend significantly more defending her than they ever billed the COB. I am not taking lightly my claims that she repeatedly lie to the court. I will be posting the transcript for everyone to read. I will be asking the Texas Supreme Court to order the State Bar to commence disbarment proceedings. The State Bar knows full well that if they refuse to bring disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Leeds, Ms. Leeds and the State Bar will be defending a third proceeding in federal court. I thought Peter Zavaletta was bad in his obsession with lying to the court - Peter Zavaletta is an angel compared to Eileen Leeds. Enough said - for now.


When I first read the opinion, which I am including for my readers to read on their own if they so choose, I though “what is it with Judge Hanen, is he openly biased against BISD?” But then a lawyer pointed out to me that a judge is not to use procedural tricks or mistakes by the lawyer to throw a plaintiff out of court. The goal is justice and a second chance is what the judge should allow for. It has been so long since I have seen a federal judge follow the rule of law, I forgot the rule of law. So basically, I am cool with the opinion.


I do not expect people to read the opinion - but I am certain many people will scan it - I will tell you what to look for - it raises a question - why did Hector Gonzales not raise the Otis Powers angle? Is it because he knows it is all BS and Otis Powers is just making up claims the Board would be happy if Juarez cooperated by filing a claim against Hector Gonzales? My issue is simple - if Gonzales knew these claims to be true why did he not raise them? Answer - they are false, or they would have open a doorway of truth Hector Gonzales did not want out there. Was Gonzales part of this plan to used the employees to file grievances against one another?

The opinion starts out by the court admonishing Tony Juarez to not continue to fail to respond to deadlines set by the court. This is really an admonishment to his lawyers. At page 9 the court notes entered findings by the Magistrate Judge against Tony Juarez in part are being upheld because his lawyers failed to properly object to the findings. He later allows for additional time for Tony Juarez to prove his claims rather than grant summary judgment at this time. This is where I thought - “does Hanen have it in for BISD?” The reality is, a good judge will give a plaintiff a second bite at the apple if he sees his attorneys have failed him. Also a good judge will not punish a plaintiff in the first round because his attorneys failed to meet court deadlines.

The big issue in the case is, did the Board violate his Free Speech rights. The claim is adverse action was taken against Juarez after he went to the FBI. This is funny to me because after HUD opened a civil rights investigation against Tony Juarez’s entity the Brownsville Housing Authority, they send a notice to the single mother of 2 and 1 grandchild that her public assistance was being terminated. I wonder if Hanen will allow this woman’s civil rights claim to proceed? I digress.

What is really interesting is the footnote on page 13. If the evidence holds up it will be very damaging to the Board. The court found sufficient evidence to raise a fact question (which the jury can reject) that the Board has created a corrupt policy to encourage employees to file grievances against one another. This is pretty bad.

Now this goes back to Otis Powers. I am not going to list every page wherein his name appears. Guys, you need to put some effort into this. Click on the opinion - take an index card - go down the screen - and stop every time you see Powers. If what is on the tape is something more than Powers blowing smoke the Board is in trouble.

I think my readers now have a fair and balanced view of what has happened in this case. Unless you are a lawyer with experience in federal court the opinion is kind of heavy. But if you insist - read on.

No comments: