Saturday, August 18, 2012


Michael Cowen gives new meaning to unconscionable conduct.  He is the typical self absorbed narcissist - "do not talk about me because I am special, but I will lie about and destroy any one I need to to deceive and mislead the people."  Michael you cannot run from the acts of your cocounsel Ruben Peña and his work with CAVA, or your client.  Man up Michael and take responsibility.

I nearly pissed my pants laughing when I read  about Montoya's demand that his drivel be used as evidence.  You do not need spies when they are actually publishing their inner strategy for everyone to see and read.  I also had no problem securing a copy of the questions CAVA presented to Judge Cascos.  Remember, I was an invited guest, except that I was spared being directly exposed to the nonsense.


If they knew they were not going to turn over all of these so called affidavits to Judge Cascos, or Roger Ortiz, what was the point of putting the claims into writing?  It was an extreme pathetic attempt to influence Judge Cascos.  But Judge Cascos being an educated man, saw right through it.  The only thing they accomplished was publishing to Erin Hernandez and her lawyer their trial strategy.  The more they play this game of claiming to have evidence and refusing to release it, the less credible they appear.  Until the affiant is crossed examined, any and all claims are worthless. 

My real concern is they are tainting evidence which could in fact be used to put some of these politiqueras in jail, and possibly any number of candidates.  Because I believe the real weak link here is Linda Salazar I am pursuing that evidence.  If you take down Linda Salazar, she will squeal big time about the politiqueras and the Hernandez family.

Montoya of El Rrun Rrun commented: "I don't know if any of you have read the accounts of election fraud detailed in my blog, but those accounts are backed up by affidavits that will be presented in the coming trial. That includes the activities of Amadeo Rodriguez."

This is actually interesting at multiple levels. First of all affidavits are worthless at trial.  They will not be admitted into evidence.  You either call the witness so they can be crossed examined, or you have nothing.  These idiots actually think they can hand the judge affidavits and he is going to believe what is in them without allowing for a cross examination of the affiant. 

Imagine you are a scared old woman being approached by these pathological liars.  They say to her it is illegal to vote from a van unless she might suffer an injury if she tries to get out of the van.  Now you are an old woman, not quite sure who these people are who are in your home, what do you do?  You do what any normal person would do, who is scared to death - you fudge the truth to a half truth to protect your own interests.

CAVA is in part Ruben Peña, Ruben Peña is also one of Yolanda Begum's attorney.  On this issue of collecting affidavits what happened last time Ruben Peña went after seniors who did not vote for him?

"Pena, who is attempting to gather enough witnesses to overturn the election results that resulted in his loss to Ernie Hernandez by 49 votes, apparently is resorting in trying to get enough voters to say they did not know who they voted fr when politiqueras mailed in their ballots.

But for Sylvia Cisneros, the methods his attorneys and process servers are using smack of intimidation and coercion.

"This is not right," she said. "They can't allow this kind of behavior to continue like this. Now we're really glad we didn't vote for him. If he doesn't watch out, he might end up getting charged and sued himself."
Was Montoya lying when he made these claims against Ruben Peña, or do the courts and the Texas AG need to be concerned Ruben Peña is at it again in trying to intimidate voters into signing false affidavits.


 CAVA seems to think they are the first group to try this con job.  The courts are  fully aware of the con job which is why centuries ago the use of affidavits as opposed to a live witness were barred.  What happens when you get these witnesses on the stand is, the entire story which normally includes false or misleading information having first been feed to the witness comes out.  This undue influence on the witness causes things to go down hill from there.


CAVA claims to have all of this evidence but will not release it because they intend to try and blindside Erin Garcia with the evidence at trial.  So now they admit, because they must, they have yet to present any evidence to Roger Ortiz, but yet continue to destroy his reputation with lies of stonewalling.


On this issue Yolanda Begum's attorney questioned in strong terms CAVA's bogus claims.

"Thus far, I have no criticisms of the way that Mr. Ortiz or the Civil Division has treated me."

The fact of the matter is, Roger Ortiz could have invoked the litigation exemption in responding to any Open Records Request related to this matter, but he did not - he got his staff on it  right away.  I can assure you less honorable Election Administrators would have invoked the litigation exception and made Michael Cowen issue subpoenas. 

People of conscience have empathy - Mary Flores has no conscience.   At first when politicians would ask me what is Mary Flores' problem I would say, "she is ignorant and just does not understand how she is being played."  But now that it has been proven to her that she lied about the election judges, and her response is to call me the "crazy guy" for pointing out her lie, it is fair to now say she has no conscience.  A person of honor would have issued an apology to Roger Ortiz.

You know when I was wrong in saying Dr. Natalicio of UTEP was the first Latina university president, (her maiden name is actually German), I immediately sent an apology to Dr. Garcia and admitted to my mistake in my blog and in several online news services.  I can assure you no such apology will be forthcoming from Mary Flores for her lies against Roger Ortiz.

Mary Flores is devoid of even the modicum of integrity.


So Michael, is CAVA lying about your intent to use their evidence, which thereby makes you party to their conduct? 

Michael, knowing full well Erin Garcia's lawyer can  destroy Mary Flores for her bold face lies about Roger Ortiz hiring the election judges, do you still intend to use her evidence?

Michael, you can no longer run from this - it is time you take responsibility for your cocounsel Ruben Peña and your client.  They are clearly party to the destruction of a public official for no better reason than political gain.


You cannot solve a problem until you take the time to understand it.  All one has to do is look to the case of Bruce Sherbit in Dallas.  He was forced to resign as the Election Administrator because he refused to give into the political pressure of corrupt forces.  In my view the only person who should be allowed to remove an Election Administrator is the Secretary of State, based on evidence of just cause presented by the local Election Board.  This would take the politics out of the office.

It is impossible for any Election Administrator to avoid the local politics.  It is a balancing act with no rewards. 

What you do not do is, do what CAVA, Ruben Peña, Yolanda Begum and Michael Cowen have done, promote a campaign of deception and lies against the Election Administrator.


The idea of this education video which Roger Ortiz agreed needed to be done after our meeting on Thursday is not a new idea.  In 1996, the last time there was a call for reform, I along with others demanded that the SOS create such a video.  This all came out of the Velasco/Flores election contest.  I represented Diana Flores and won both the civil case and criminal case.

For the record, the above is why lawyers from all over Texas call me to consult on Election Contests.  Lawyers understand the value in consulting with someone who has actually won an election contest.

[SIDE NOTE:  What happened in the Flores matter is, we learned real early that the appointed judges were plants to throw out the election at any cost.  This is why there were so many successful mandamuses and appeals in the case.  Candidates are not the only ones who can steal an election.  Judges too can steal an election.  The Flores case is a case in point.  When dealing with judicial corruption you need an attorney willing to put everything on the line for their client.  The judicial corruption was so bad that the first judge threatened to throw me in jail for asking him to void his illegal TRO.  That was the first mandamus which issued in the case.  The third judge actually put me in jail for contempt for refusing to recognize his jurisdiction in the case.  The Administrative Judge heard about it on the radio and ordered me released immediately.  Attorneys cannot be arrested in court for contempt.  The remedy is to refer the attorney for contempt.  This I believe was the second or third mandamus which  found the judge in fact did not have jurisdiction in the case such as I had alleged. - My point is, in the wrong hands and with the time table about to run out, this case is ripe for a judge to steal the election.]

We demanded that it be made a law mandating the SOS create such a video.  The compromise was these informational flyers included in the mail ballots.  Was I happy?, no - but it was a start.  Hopefully this time around the State legislators will understand we need an official video created by the SOS as an educational tool for the seniors and the employees at these centers.

My frustration is, I know how these things work - if those who can force change start reading endless lies and nonsense they will conclude the problem is not real.  The lawyers who write the laws know there must be a legislative record to justify the law in the event of a constitutional challenge.  Evidence is not the ramblings of idiots, morons, and unconscionable pathological liars.  We can bring change, but not if the record indicates the claims are highly questionable because of the acts of unethical people.


Anonymous said...

Why were you spared from being in the meeting and given a private session? What was gain from this meeting with the local bloggers?

BobbyWC said...

With them, I would say nothing was gained - Montoya left and continued the lie about Ortiz appointing the election judges. I suspect Cascos now knows you cannot expect honesty from dishonest people.

I think he saw them as a group trying to get to the truth, but now sees them as dishonest people who can be reasoned with with facts

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for asking; but, did you answer the first question? Why were you spared from being in the meeting with the other bloggers and given a private session?