Thursday, June 3, 2010

CONTINUING WITH THE PEÑA/HERNANDEZ ELECTION CONTEST

BUT FIRST FOR YOU RENDON FANS: You do not get to complain after Rendon casts his first vote for using the bond money for more construction. He has already said he is going to do it so you cannot be surprised. Look to the mail ballots for the original election. Rendon 98 - Breedlove 7. You know McHale can say a billion times Garcia’s people steal elections with mail-ballots but in the end the numbers tell the truth.

http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/election/docs/TSC_BND_results.pdf

After trial yesterday in the election contest - people were hanging out around the elevator. Rendon was pushing his candidacy. As the elevator doors open Rendon looks to Erin Garcia (daughter/lawyer of Ernie Hernandez) an says’ “make sure you get out the vote for me.” Erin responds “we always get out the vote in large numbers.” After watching this trial only the sickest and most dishonest minds would have asked Erin Hernandez Garcia for help with their election.

From the beginning my gut feeling about Rendon has been, he is a Breedlove replacement - a plant by Garcia. People he said he wants to continue with the construction. This means using the bond money being paid for with local tax dollars. How is this not Garcia and Breedlove?

THE TRIAL

For the record, I am eating crow on this one - Peña had his evidence lined up and proved the election fraud in a very respectful manner through the voters.

This is going to be both dry and exciting - so just stay with it.

On Friday by court order the transcript of the trial will be available - at least electronically. While I would hope the Herald would try to buy a copy of the electronic transcript for its readers, I too will see what I can do. The first hour and ½ is dry - very dry - just Roger Ortiz going over the law and how his office works.

Along these lines of the electronic transcript, Armando Villalobos will have access to same. His grand jury investigation should begin then. Peña needs to forward the transcript to the Texas Attorney General and FBI. No one except a totally blind Hernandez supporter can conclude there is not overwhelming evidence of criminal conduct. The first witness sent chills up and down my spine. This transcript has to be posted to the internet - the public needs to see just how corrupt the judge is in the case, and just how corrupt the election process is in our community. Armando Villalobos can define himself in this community if he takes the bull by the horns and brings indictments. If he does not it will be the final blow to his incredibly tainted reputation.

First about his judge - and what the Herald does not seem to believe is newsworthy. In law attorneys have a duty to communicate through people’s lawyers and not the person directly once the lawyer has appeared for a specific purpose. Second the law provides that subpoenas can be served by and through lawyer representing the person you want served. Last week and yesterday this judge barred Ruben Peña from serving Norma Hernandez through her lawyer. He also barred Peña from serving Herminia Becerra, through her attorney Javier Aquirre, according to Peña. Margarita Ozuna’s husband and son were both served with subpoenas and failed to appear.

This denying Peña access to key witnesses does not end there. Peña had 63 witnesses served and only 38 appeared. It is standard practice for a judge to issue an order under these circumstances to compel the witnesses into court. Such as the judge made it impossible to serve Norma Hernandez, Herminia Becerra, Margarita Ozuna and Amadeo Rodriguez with subpoenas, he refused to allow Peña to bring enough witnesses into the courtroom to prove his case.

The judge made a mistake by keeping the case open until at least Monday. I will be shocked if he rules on Friday afternoon. He already said he needs to review the transcript first. Also for the record, not one, and I mean not one witness said a word of negativity about the process servers. One witness did testify how a representative of Margarita Ozuna arrived at her home to address the issue of her subpoena. The testimony as confusing - but what was not confusing is, this witness had a card from someone claiming to represent Margarita Ozuna. This is similar to a story told by Fred Drew.

Another obstruction by this judge dealt with the disability question. Peña failed to read the case law on the issue and was at a disadvantage with the judge on the issue. You cannot compel someone to testify against themselves. If they lied on their application about their disability, you cannot compel them to give testimony about the issue. This is not the same as the witness wanting to testify so the record is clear they were lied to and are a victim. The judge would not allow the witnesses willing to testify to put the evidence into the record.

I do not have the resources or time to do this, but the Herald needs to research this judge’s last two elections and see how he did with the mail-ballots. It was a huge mistake to assign a judge from Hidalgo County where politiqueras steal elections left and right. A judge from maybe the Houston or Dallas area should have been assigned.

It is my understanding Peña is looking at taking this judge on an immediate mandamus to compel him to allow for the testimony of those who either ran from service, or who were served and failed to show. We shall see what he does.

THE TESTIMONY

I will not identify any witness by name - just by number and gender. These people have been victimized enough. Well I will name one witness.

The first witness a male testified that Margarita Ozuna voted for him and then took his ballot. You could hear a pin drop at that point. People were horrified. Hernandez’s lawyer looked defeated - Erin Hernandez just smirked.

Witness 3 a female testified that she voted for Hernandez because Margarita Ozuna told her Ernie would improve our schools.

Witness 4 a male testified he believes it was Norma who told him to call her after he got his mail-ballot - he was not sure - he also said he did not even know who was running.

Witness 7 male - 3 ballots of people who do not live in his home were sent to his home. One person lives in Victoria (I did not hear him say if it was Victoria Mexico or Texas.

Witness 10 male - he was great - he describe the person who came to his home as dark and tall - he was distinguished and robbed him of his trust.

Witness 11 and 12 - husband and wife. She was outraged that this was happening and did seem to protest to the court that her ballot was known to everyone. While leaving she stated she and her husband would never again vote by mail.

Witness 14 male - claimed one of the signatures on his papers were false.

Witness 22 female - Margarita signed the form claiming to have helped the voter, but the voter testified under oath Margarita Ozuna did not help her. We saw this a lot which raises the question given the fact another witnesses testified that a representative of Margarita Ozuna appeared at her door about the subpoenas, did someone try an tell these witnesses how to testify?

The next witness I am going to name for two reasons. I was sitting behind her while Ortiz was testifying. Norma Esquivel while talking to herself was very snub about her disability issue. I cannot prove she did not meet the legal requirements for being disabled. That is a matter for the fact finder.

Here is the law:

§ 82.002. DISABILITY. (a) A qualified voter is eligible for early voting by mail if the voter has a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health.

Now, Ms. Esquivel’s testimony: Both she and her husband are under 65. Margarita Ozuna signed the statement claiming to have assisted Norma. Norma testified she did not. Ms. Esquivel works at BISD and had no problem driving to court. Her husband is an air conditioner repairman and also claimed disabled. She claimed both she and her husband have medical problems - in fact she was complaining how her medicine was causing her mouth to be dry during her testimony. Her son, age 27, and about to or just completed some type law enforcement program at UTB is also disabled.

Her son, according to her has had several operations. What he is too disabled to vote early? She was angry this was coming out about her son because she feels like he has suffered discrimination in the past and will now not be able to get a job in law enforcement. What? They intended to lie on the application. What? As a “ voter [he] has a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health” but he is healthy enough to be in law enforcement?

To a person who testified on the issue, there was a sense of shock they were mislead by the politiqueras on the disability issue. Not Norma - “I take medicine I am disabled as defined by the election code.” (My words not hers) And maybe she is- that is for the fact finder.

Norma was not the only BISD employee claiming to be too disabled to make it to the polls during any of the number of days of early voting, but could make it to work.

One young lady in her early 20's just completed some type medical assistance training program - not too disabled to go to school and complete the program but too disabled to make it to the polls.

To be sure most if not all of the people were played by the politiqueras. I spoke to the last witness who also was a young man. He made it clear he was lied to by the politiqueras. He felt really bad. I told him if he felt that way he needed to go next door and file a formal criminal complaint with the DA.

I am hoping Peña will post to his web page the electronic copy of the transcript so people know and understand just how bad things really are in Cameron County elections.

Finally a word on Erin Garcia, Ernie Hernandez’s equally evil twin - I do not lie I had to take a second look to realize it was his daughter and not him.

During closing argument Peña noted that Monday was Memorial Day and that veterans died defending our right to vote. Erin was smirking at the argument. I did everything I could to contain myself. Erin, you need to sue your parents for raising you to be worse than the scum of the earth. You are a disgrace as a human being. You might consider therapy to try and learn how you became the person you are. Tens of thousands of Americans have not died in service to this country so you can make light of the fact they died defending our fragile democracy. I guess you learned that from your parents.

8 comments:

BobbyWC said...

I rejected a comment from an angry Ernie supporter - you are not going to use me as a distraction from the evidence.

I am calling for the transcript to be posted so everyone can read it for themselves. If Ernie and his brain dead corrupt supporters are so confident I am lying about the evidence then let them demand he post the transcript - as we say in law "best evidence." Ernie too cowardly to show at his own trial certainly will never agree to post the testimoney for the people of Cameron County to see.

I will do my best to get the transcript for everyone to read. The truth needs to be told.

What we can expect from Ernie's supporters are distractions and false claims - they certainly cannot argue against the testimony - oh wait they can - his attorney tried to argue that the age and disability of some of the witnesses made their testimony questionable - I will admit he appeared disgusted with himself after he made the argument and never made it again as to any witness

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

A real blogger post all comments. Your just a crying little bitch. You can't take the critism. Oh but you love to dish it out.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, were any of the witnesses asked how they voted? I'm curious because that to me violates the sanctity of the secret ballot. Why must you be so personal and negative in your attack of Erin Garcia? It's commentary like that makes me wonder if I'm only one of a handful of people that take you seriously. You continue saying "his own trial" in referencing Ernie. I'm no Ernie supporter, but he isn't the one on trial. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but your phrase gives the impression he is idicted when you say his own trial or that he is the one that instigated the trial. I get the feeling this trial is more of a hearing like Hector Gonzales' than a trial. There is no jury. There was no discovery. It was fasttracked. Ruben asked for a continuance because he was not prepared to go to trial at the end of the maximum number of days allowed by election law.

BobbyWC said...

You are confused or do not understand what is happening. they are mail-ballots - no one needs to ask - only the mail-ballots voted for Ernie were in issue. There was no need to ask.

This is why one woman and her husband was so upset. the nature of the mail ballot means everyone will know how you voted - there is no getting around it.
The term trial can be civil or criminal - he is the one being sued. It is unheard of for a party to a lawsuit to not show up at trial.

You do not think he owes it to the people to stand in defense of his election?

As t oErin - I am tired of veterans being disrespected. She will be treated in according with her acts. If she wants to be treated in a civil manner then she will need to learn how to act in a civil manner.

Anonymous said...

It is not unheard of for a party to a lawsuit to not show up. You have told us that this DPM fellow is party to your lawsuit and he never showed up to any hearings. Will he show up to your trial or his trial? He comments on your blog. He has to know. And, you have the right to be entirely represented by counsel as you well know. The actual people being sued may never show up in court and entirely represented by their attorney. I'm sure you have done that many times appearing on behalf of your clients.

Now that we have that out of the way, as for mail-in ballots, I think you are confused. Mail-in ballots are placed in an envelope and opened up without anyone knowing how the person voted. That is why the signatures are so important. They are first looked at before the ballot inside the envelope is ever opened and placed anonymously in the stack. Isn't that what Roger Ortiz stated in court following the procedure set forth by the secretary of state? The ballots are stacked and run through a machine that counts the secret ballot. No one knows how they voted unless they are asked or the voter openly tells people how they voted. Even then, you do not know which one of the ballots it was that they voted on. In light of this, I think it is unconscienceable if the witnesses were ever asked how they voted.

By your account, all she did was smirk. Maybe she wishes came up with the argument. I don't think smirking entails an automatic insult to veterans.

BobbyWC said...

You seem to know what Ortiz testified to so you would know if anyone was asked. I have no recollection of anyone being asked who they voted for. Only people who voted for Ernie were brought in - these ballots are maintained. Everything was in court - the application for ballot - ballot and envelope - there was no reason to ask anyone.

And no I have never seen a trial - as opposed to a hearing wherein the party being sued did not show. Now it was a bad decision for Peña to not have a subpoena on Hernandez - I nver made that mistake.

A party cannot be held accountable in a trial until they are served - being sued does not mean you have to be in court - you have no duty to come to court until you are served.

I forgot to say before - I noted that Peña dropped the ball in getting ready for trial.

But once he succeeded in getting people served to appear the court had a legal duty to enforce their appearance - that is how it is done.

I was in court - Erin was smirking as an insult like anyone cares about veterans -

This is happening all over the US and while she such as pat Almighty has an absolute right to disrespect veterans - a right I wold defend - I have a right to express my disgust with such people- this is what makes us a free country.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

The ballot and envelope were together? Is that what you are saying? We've been over this before. That is not how it works. No one is supposed to know how you voted. So who exactly went through the ballots and attached them to a specific envelope? Who made sure that the envelope in question stayed in a particular order matching the order of the ballots, destroying the anonymity violating the directive of the secretary of state? The right to have a secret ballot has been tampered with but by whom?

And why were Ernie voters the only one brought in? Who asked them how they voted? I'm beginning to think that Ruben asked them how they voted even though he wasn't supposed to ask or have discovery.

Why would Ernie have to testify if he is the one being sued? I've never heard of a defendant being forced to testify by a plaintiff.

No. I wasn't in court. Ortiz stated such at a previous hearing while exercising his right to be represented by counsel. Lawyers think they dictate the moves of other people according to their whim. This is a direct result of the big government mentality of the sixties the notion that lawyers can decide where people have to be, imposing their will on free citizens. The people who grew up and received their public education during this time suffered the same delusion.

BobbyWC said...

First of all Peña did not mess up the Gonzles case - he established for the record it was futile to go back to the board. Under the law this allowed Gonzles to move forward - the Dallas lawyers were complete and total morons - they failed to argue the futility doctrine and then they argued non-existed law - not that facts matter.

Now to the expert on the law who was not in court. Here is a hint - read the transcript - Ortiz is the first witness he explains that in the blue box are the ballots or Ernie - these were the documents used by Peña - if you have a problem with that call Ortiz for producing them - file a complaint against the judge who ordered them produced. - distraction games never work - everyone readying this can see you are throwing stones at a made up wall

it is all in the transcript - read it

Obviously you have never been in a trial - why would a plaintiff sue someone and then not call them as a witness? the defendent is always called as a witness - how do you think a plaintiff proves their case if they do not call to the witness stand the person they are suing.

Just keep on posting - you are just making Ernie look stupid and desperate

Bobby WC