Thursday, August 2, 2012


BV TO COVER BEGUM/GARCIA ELECTION CONTEST

This afternoon Yolanda Begum filed some type lawsuit against Erin Garica.  I am assuming it is an election contest.  Michael Cowen will be representing Yolanda Begum.  The case number is 2012-DCL-05503.  The first step is for Judge Olvera to assign the case to a visiting judge.

I will update this post in a few minutes, but let me say to both sides there will  be no sacred cows.  All questions of law in an election contest are subject to mandamus review.  This is because the process does not allow for a complete review on appeal and a new trial.  I recommend both sides prepare a draft mandamus now so as to be ready at a moments notice to file same.

In the update I will post in a  few minutes I will explain why I am reopening the BV.  I will cover all hearings and the trial, unless I have a previous engagement.  I fully expect to say things neither side will like.  My goal will be to provide a complete coverage of the process.

More to come - by 6:15 p.m.

As a primer I am providing the transcripts from the Pena/Hernandez election fraud lawsuit.

In part one the first voter witness is Ricardo Liceaga. If you look to the top of the document you should be able to figure out how to fast forward to page 73.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42131804/ElectionFraud-Penatrial-Part1

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42132051/ElectionFraudPenaTrialPart2

WHY I AM GOING TO COVER THIS TRIAL

I want the truth about the politiqueras to come out.  But I also want people to understand what is at stake.  It is unconstitutional to delve into the mindset of the voter.  The right of privacy as to the ballot is absolute.  This is a very tricky question in election contests.  There are ways to get to the evidence without further violating the rights of the voter.

If the only way you can win an election contest is to violate the sanctity of the thought process of the voter, then you are no better than the person who steals ballots.

FROM THE PENA/HERNANDEZ TRIAL

THE TESTIMONY

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

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 -

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.

These witnesses are the other side of the coin.  The court needs to protect these type voters from a fishing expedition.  Forcing people into court on a fishing expedition is as much a violation of the right to vote as is stealing a ballot.  We shall see if Michael Cowen can understand this simple concept.   This issue needs to be addressed upfront in a pretrial conference so the losing side can take the  court on mandamus.  There is no going backwards and giving the voters back their right of privacy.

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?

2 comments:

Michael Cowen said...

I would be happy to sit down with you and discuss your concerns. I am doing this case pro bono, and am doing so because I want to expose the truth. I do not want to violate anyone's rights in the process, but do need to take the appropriate actions to determine whether this election was tainted by fraud.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back! You blog is is the only blog of substance and we have missed you.