Tuesday, March 12, 2013



MONTOYA AND SARKIS PLAY WORD GAMES TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE

"To the uninitiated, this may not seem like a big deal, but if you had sworn to the Sate of Texas you lived at the Squaw Valley address to get a voting card, and at the same time you are swearing that you lived at the Hitching Post address for the last seven years, what are the voters to believe?"

If you read Montoya's statement carefully he appears to be saying at the same time Rosalio Rosales signed for his voter registration card on Squaw Valley he swore he lived on Hitching Post.  What a real journalist, versus as paid propagandist would print is the date of the last time Rosales applied for a voter registration card and then compare that date to when he signed the form stating he lives on Hitching Post.

Montoya does not do this because it does not fit the narrative is client Martin Sarkis is paying for.

Now the story which would be legit is, Rosales gets an "F" in keeping track of the address where he is registered to vote.  Of course with Montoya's endless praise for former Elections Administrator Roger Ortiz it is not possible his office made a mistake - oh no - not possible.

Under Montoya's theory because I one time myself lived on Squaw Valley and voted in the last city commission election from that address, my honesty should be questioned because my address is now over in the Cowen Terrace area.

I do not know if Rosales voted in November - but when you read Montoya's piece you would not know for sure if he did - there is no clear declarative statement on the issue - it is mere innuendo.  Apparently he was not even willing to go down to the elections office to find out.

Yes, maybe Rosales gets an "F" on managing his voter registration card - but that is not an issue Brownsville would consider pressing.  So why is Sarkis pushing lies about where Rosales lives - because he is another con artist willing to pay a convicted drunk to run propaganda as a distraction.  It will not work - it did not work for Begum and it will not work for Sarkis.

The bottom line shows, Rosales lives at the Hitching Post address and the home on Squaw Valley is being sold to the sister of Erasmos and Linda Castro.  Why let the triviality of public documents get in the way of paid  for lies?

It is sad Rosales will not go negative because a Sunday ad spelling this out for the voters and how Sarkis is just a con artist would end Sarkis campaign where it stands.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Honest question: Should a candidate be held to their voter registration address on file at candidate filing deadline? And if not then, then when?

BobbyWC said...

The law is where you live - I actually defended a Dallas City counsel person on this issue before a grand jury and won - there is nothing here but Sarkis trying to win dirty

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

No, that's not quite accurate. In Brownsville, the law is where you live AND where you are qualified to vote. Both of those conditions must be met according to the city charter.

BobbyWC said...

you can only be qualified to vote where you live - he lives on Hitching Post - county documents proves this it is that simple

But Sarkis is going to keep this going until he has zero credibility

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

That's not right, either. You're qualified to vote where you are registered to vote, regardless of your true residence. You even give Rosales an "F" in this blog post for as much.

BobbyWC said...

absolutely wrong - also I raised the issue maybe not an F if the Elections Office messed up

In the Medrano JP case in Dallas he was found guilty of criminal for conduct for exactly what you are saying is legal - you cannot just register to vote anywhere - but you have no duty to change your voter registration when you move - it is possible Rosales messed up on this but it is not a crime - a lot of people move and never change their voter registration address - in fact - at the poll they will allow you to use our licence to get the correct ballot

Sarkis is desperate and seems only desperate to dig his hole deeper

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Now you're (sort'a) cooking.

Imagine:
- a candidate moved and never changed his voter registration address until after the candidate filing deadline,
- the city charter reads that a candidate must live in AND be registered in the district they're running for (go check out the charter for yourself, if you still doubt).

...if the candidate doesn't satisfy this charter requirement by the candidate filing deadline, should he still qualify?

BobbyWC said...

Stop the game playing - Sarkis cannot win on intelligence so he is using dirty politics - how about instead of just saying all of this nonsense you copy and paste the city charter provision and then provide the time on when he registered to vote and when he filed for on the ballot

your nonsense is endless - until you provide substantive evidence which you seem to claim you have I will not continue this conversation - you claim to have all of this evidence but yet have failed to produce everything

If Sarkis is so sure - go to court and get Rosales removed from the ballot. He can file a DOJ complaint with evidence that the city changed the election code without preclearance = trust me they will get involved if you have the evidence.

Done with the nonsense until you produce proof of anything

Anonymous said...

"The law is where you live - I actually defended a Dallas City counsel person on this issue before a grand jury and won - there is nothing here but Sarkis trying to win dirty"

Bobby WC

I think you are in error. A defense attorney may present a defense packet that is distributed to the members of the Grand Jury by the prosecution. A criminal defendant does not have the right to testify at the grand jury nor does his attorney have the right to be present. Defendant can’t even watch. Yours was not a defense "before a Grand Jury". You are leading one to believe you argued before a jury.

BobbyWC said...

you are actually dead wrong - I have argued before grand juries 3 times - they decide who they want to hear from - not the DA - you obviously know nothing about the process.

I have argued 2 grand jury referrals - when the grand jury foreman tried to play games he along with the DA in the room were removed by the elected DA. That was a perjury case I referred to the grand jury. In the city counsel race the grand jury granted my request to argue the case - I argued the case - before the grand jury

further while a possible defendant has no right to an attorney present when he testifies before the grand jury there is no law preventing the grand jury from appearing separate from his client or the grand jury allowing the attorney to be present when the client testifies - the grand jury decides what they want. When grand juries are forced to decide the case without testimony from the accused a good grand jury will allow for the prospective defendant to have some form of representation - they control the process.

You obviously know nothing about grand juries - but nice try

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

You did not argue the case before the grand jury as the paid defense attorney for the accused. You may have testified before the grand jury but you DID NOT represent the accused.

BobbyWC said...

You are dead wrong - I went in and argued why the law was on his side - I argued the evidence showed his intent to reside at the residence he listed as his residence - it was that simple - the grand jury then no billed him

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

You did not address my point. More directly, were you the paid defense attorney for the accused at the time you testified before the grand jury?

"Defense counsel is not authorized to be in the grand jury room when evidence is presented, nor is counsel allowed to make oral argument. The defense attorney can be outside the grand jury chambers and can prepare witnesses to testify."

BobbyWC said...

You are clueless - you do not seem to understand the difference between a right and the grand jury being allowed to grand leave to a defense attorney to argue for their client. A grand jury has incredible powers - they can authorize just about anyone to speak to them - - it is the grand jury granting leave for their purposes and not the defendant claiming a right to be heard through counsel

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I agree with your that the grand jury has the power to invite an attorney to TESTIFY before them. However, you stated that you argued, implied as defense counsel, before the grand jury. This you cannot do. And, that is why you have not answered my question as to whether you were the paid defense council of record.

BobbyWC said...

how dense can you be - John paid me - I put the documents together - I send the grand jury a letter asking that they use their authority to allow me to argue the case for John - they granted my request - it was not a right - it was the grand jury simply allowing me to speak - I could not be a witness because I had no personal knowledge of anything - I was never sworn - I simply gave them the documents they already had and the case law - I explained my position and then they excused me - John paid my bill - he was no billed.

Bobby WC