Thursday, May 16, 2013


AFTERNOON SESSION
VILLALOBOS TRIAL DAY 4

ANDROPHY TO CONTINUE CROSS EXAMINATION OF ODLF

We are in court waiting on Judge Hanen and the jury.

Androphy returns to the issue of the Money House case .  He filed the answer for the clients to avoid a default judgment.  Written statement by Julio Villarreal giving ODLF authority to negotiate the settlement.  Adela and Selma also signed agreement - but ODLF questioned the authenticity of the signatures.  ODLF says he was present when Julio signed the document.

ODLF got about 20% of the cash seized back.  ODLF admits on the cash he got on the lower end of the offers.  But the state got no interest in either house.  The 20% does not include the benefit of the houses not being kept.   Androphy claims ODLF got he low end of these type deals but then ODLF responds in terms of the cash yes, but the client also kept their houses.  ODLF got for himself about $87,000.

ODLF  claims Villalobos told him the warrants were good so he trusted him.  ODLF claims Villalobos never made the search warrant affidavits available

ODLF says both he and Villalobos wanted no one present when money changed hands.

ODLF claims he did not write 2 campaign checks.  But he admits to checks - from him and his wife - there was also an early check for $5,000.  Villalobos could not accept the $5,000 check because under federal law the max is $2,500 for a federal campaign.  ODLF got back the $5,000 check and then ODLF wrote 2 $2,500.00 checks.  The issue here is a time frame.  Androphy dropped it there.

ODLF admits to giving Villalobos campaign donations for DA - thousands of dollars.

ODLF never gave the maximum amount in the DA races.  About $1,500 a year - he thinks

ODLF says both he and Villalobos wanted the money exchanges always done in private.

ODLF got $2,500 for going to Beaumont to get Villarreal to sign off on deal.

MONEY TRUCK CASE

It involved $900,000.  ODLF agrees he did not investigate this case either.  He just wanted the truck.  Androphy notes ODLF was only going after the truck, not the money.  ODLF insists his client was not interested in the money.

They are reviewing an old court  transcript from, 30 days ago.  It indicates that ODLF was interested in the money.  ODLF is holding on his client just wanting the truck.  There was no fee agreement for the money. 

The Feds were involved in this truck seizure - just like in the money house case. 

Chavez was ODLF client in the money case.  ODLF got $42,000 on behalf of Chavez.  ODLF agrees he never spoke to Chavez.  ODLF says Julio Villarreal hired him to represent Chavez - Chavez was a passenger in the car and employee of Villarreal.

Chaves got charged in a criminal proceeding and Villarreal did not.  ODLF did not represent Chavez in the criminal matter.

ODLF both he and Villalobos wanted secret meetings for money exchange

The judgment awarded the money to Chavez - ODLF claims Chavez did not want the money based on an affidavit, but he never actually spoke to Chavez - just his employer Julio Villarreal.

Now ODLF says the affidavit says that law enforcement claimed in an affidavit Chavez did not want any money - Chavez actually never sign an affidavit.

[side note - insurance companies hire lawyers all the  time to settle personal injury cases in the name of the insured without  the consent of the insured.  I have filed suits on this and the courts have upheld the right of the insurance companies to settle without the knowledge or consent of the insured even when an attorney has been hired to represent the insured]

% wise in terms of cash ODLF got less than 5% of the cash - but also the truck.

The driver was Sanchez - his lawyer filed a Motion to Suppress based on an illegal seizure of the truck.  ODLF made no such effort for his client.

We are looking at a Motion to Disclose Confidential Witness as a way to determine of the search was valid.

The stop was made for defective equipment and not driving in one lane.  The case went to trial.  ODLF claims this means the motion to suppress were denied.  But he cannot say that for sure.  Sanchez was found not guilty.

ODLF claims he could not find out who Chavez's criminal lawyer is - my comment - all he had to do was pull the file.  I do it all of the time.

ODLF only knew the feds were involved because Villalobos told him.  Villalobos was negotiating with the feds. 

ODLF claims to have given part of the $42,000 to Villalobos.  Eddie Lucio also got $42,000 and ODLF client also got his truck back.

Androphy is trying to make the argument that the deal was bad because they did not get the entire $900,000 back.  Villarreal only got sued on the truck seizure and he got his truck back.

THE LIVINGSTON CASE

ODLF knowledge limted to what Villalobos told him - ODLF had no involvement in the case.  ODLF assisted another attorney in representing Amit Livingston's father in Limas court after his arrest.

ODLF has no knowledge if Limas got money from Livingston's father. 

ODLF agrees that Limas would have people hire certain lawyers. 

[note - fatigue is setting in - you can see it in the jury - I am falling asleep]

At the JAMES HEARING - pretrial hearing last month - Judsge Hanen just moved the jury with some levity about no James in this case. 

Villalobos had originally floated the proposal of a lawyer representing the victim's family. 

On the motion to surpress there was an issue of the weapon.  ODLF is stating he has no knowledge of the facts of the Livingston case.

ODLF testified if children involved lawyers should only get 1/3rd and that also an ad litem should have been appointed.  

ODLF maintains a lawyer could have been appointed to represent the interests of the children even without a lawsuit based on the bond money.  The money would be released to the father since he posted the bond.

ODLF agrees ad litem do not file lawsuits - ODLF maintains the court can appoint an ad litem in a criminal case if restitution is ordered.  This is all moot - the father agreed to release the money - no civil attorneys were needed.

ODLF says Villalobos told him they needed to finish the case so that "we can get the money" while making a fist and bring it towards his body.

ODLF has no personal knowledge whether or not Villalobos got any money from the Livingston case.

[side note - Eddie Lucio's lawyers are in the courtoom  every day.  They are assessing the situation.  It is theoretically possible Lucio could agree to a plea based on this trial and testify at the end if he has been listed as a witness.] 

Androphy looking to change directions and going through notes

HERVERY ROEL CASE

ODLF says a hard case but he was able to resolve it with Villalobos help

ODLF says he chose to only negotiate with Villalobos in easier cases only

Judge telling the jury Saturday 9-3 to avoid the following Saturday which is a three day weekend.

We are in break

We are back

ODLF says he made payments in easy cases.  12/2011 - Interview ODLF stated he paid Villalobos on easy cases, and forfeiture cases. 

ODLF agrees Hervey Roel was not an easy case.

ODLF rarely approached Villalobos about victim cases, for the most part.

ODLF about Roel case - testified back in 2003 when he was placed on probation - John Blaylock was the attorney when terminated early from 10 years.  ODLF does not know how long he served on probation.  ODLF looking at court document to refresh memory on issue. The original case was 5 years deferred adjudication, not 10 years.  The original probation was extended an additional year.

This conflicts with ODLF testimony from yesterday wherein he said he got 10 years and was released early.

Judge Hanen throwing in levity as to who owns the paper used on court charts where the attorneys write summaries of testimony - this wakes up the jury.

The victim in the Roel case according to ODLF did sign a non prosecution affidavit.

In non prosecution cases the DA requests that the victims attend a class to explain their rights and options. 

ADA Korina Barraza - Letter to Friendship of Woman -  Jessica Reyes is being referred for the 5 weeks victim counselling.  The victim was refusing to cooperate.

Ltr from Joe Lopez to Villalobos - Lopez spoke with Reyes and she stated she no longer wanted to pursue the charges.  Joe Lopez stating victim wanted the charges dropped. 

ODLF agrees difficult to prosecute without victim's cooperation.  

 The evidence show the victim completed the program. For victims.

[note it is true these cases are hard to prosecute without the victim - but given this fact why then did ODLF have to go to Villalobos?  Did not the trial ADA not know how hard these cases are without a victim?]

ODLF says his meetings with would last as much and an hour.  They would talk cases and personal.

On this case he got a year probation. 

Villalobos. notes - "Can you check on victim to see what she wants to do, is she okay with misdemeanor assault.?"

JUAREZ CASE

ODLF - Victim okayed deal. 

This was not an easy case and it included a victim.

Juarez was breaking into the house to take his own child.   - This was not an easy case.  The victim signed a non-prosecution affidavit. She wished to dismiss charges. 

Androphy - did ODLF tell the government there were no prosecution affidavits in both cases?  ODLF agrees he did not disclose this fact to the government.

ANDROPHY IS GOING  through all the bribe cases to try and establish that Villalobos' decisions were justified under the facts.  He has also established that ODLF failed to disclose to the DOJ key information such as affidavits of non-prosecution.

Ltr - Joe Lopez to Villalobos:  "victim would want to go forward" under certain circumstances.  Victim stated she has a protective order against Juarez so long as the protective order remained in place.

Note from Villalobos to file a misdemeanor assault  - note - if these cases are so hard to prosecute without a victim's assistance - why did ODLF have to go to Villalobos to get what he wanted?

JOSE DE LEON CASE

Victim Ok'd conditions  - in this case law enforcement was the victim - ODLF it was a hard case.

de leon was undocumented and living in this area.  He had a prior offense  - but ODLF did not know about it.

Anything other than pretrial diversion would get him deported. 

Report shows Jose De Leon completed all of the terms of pretrial diversion.

Yesterday we saw the video tape of the chase of De Leon.

This case was going to be a state jail felony but settled as a misdemeanor deferred - 11 months - ODLF wanted pretrial diversion  because of his immigration status.

PEREZ CASE

Androphy - was on probation and arrested for deadly conduct - he was driving his pick-up and a young lady got scared,  ODLF hired an investigator.  Perez had an alibi - ODLF had an investigator checking the alibi. 

Joe Lopez  - get statement from waitress and video which shows alibi.  Ms. Torres is stating an investigator from an attorney was there to verify the alibi - she verified a time frame when he was there - he was a regular customer.  The affidavit is from DA's office.

Now looking at ODLF's investigator's affidavit - same basis testimony.  The  time frame allowed for the alibi according to Androphy - ODLF does not remember the time frame for sure.

The State dismissed the charges and motion to revoke, based on insufficient evidence.  - signed by ADA Julie Allen

notes show evidence does not constitute offense - deadly conduct case dismissed by DA's office because the evidence did not support same.

Second document showing dismissed for law of evidence of deadly conduct signed by ADA Julie Allen

Third document showing dismissal for proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Statement from Lane Haygood ADA - does not look like deadly conduct case.

We are  done for the day - back at 8:30 a.m.

On Saturday 9-3








6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The real story here is not the graft and corrupt lawyers. No, that is expected and common. What stands out is the alacrity with which they turn on each other to save what little of their hide they have left. Cheers to the human race.

Anonymous said...

Just think how many times people in general ask for help and favors because everyone knows of somebody in any system, whether it be a speeding ticket or get better seats at a game. I know because I ask all the time I need help! As a human race, we don't seem to be happy with what we have unless we want more.

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments at 3:36 and 7:31 . . . . it seems that you, the commenter, understand that our legal system nothing more than imperfect human creation. What we are seeing play out before our eyes in this case is nothing more than a lesson in human behavior.

The following are few simple human truths on display in this trial:

1. Everyone hates the accused until they themselves are the accused.

2. No ones poo is without foul odor.

3. All closets have skeletons.

4. Perhaps most hard to bear is that all government is corrupt, or at least corruptible.

BobbyWC said...

above great comment - now for the comment I rejected - I agree with you 100% - after the verdict you can post the same comment -

What people learned today is how both the feds and state prosecutors

This trial is exposing the reality of our entire criminal system - federal and state - a woman in the courtroom told me she was disgusted to hear how both the federal and state systems work.

It is sad CNN or someone is not covering this because it would cause a major national debate about both our federal and state courts.

I am beyond myself with the phone calls I am getting from elected officials telling me how much they are learning.

A news story should educate not titilate - I am not the NY Post i am educating thousands of people in both the federal and state system

For the record based on my discussion with callers, and people in the courtroom - neither side smells clean

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Look, we should all understand how politics works and has worked. If you help a candidate he is most likely going to return the favor. In theory not illegal unless the politician is forgiving a crime. This happens EVERYWHERE. When elected officials, ESPECIALLY law enforcement place a price tag on it that is not only a crime but should be unforgivable. Not saying that happened here yet till the verdict is in.
I've always believed
1. EVERY judge and law enforcement official should HAVE to spend one weekend in jail. Protected o course. Eat the shitty food, hear the cat calls, etc.
how can you rightfully send someone to a place you've never been and are TOTALLY unfamiliar with.
2. If you are a prosecutor or law enforcement and you are caught withholding evidence or making some up, you should be convicted of the same crime and do the time if the case is overturned.
It would make our public "SERVANTS" feel less untouchable.

Anonymous said...

To 10:06,

What is the difference between forgiving a crime in exchange for political support, and any other exercise of government power in exchange for political support? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Both ARE illegal, and not just in theory.

You cannot just carve out forgiving a crime as the only "illegal" favor that can being returned in exchange for political support. A vote on a city commission, school board or any other discretionary act of government is equally illegal if given as a "favor" in exchange for a benefit, including political support.

Why are lawyers even allowed to financially contribute to the campaigns of judges, district attorneys, and clerks at all? It seems to me that many all these problems would have been avoided if there was a law against attorneys contributing to the campaigns of judges and district attorneys.

There should be no financial, political or even personal connections between the judiciary and the people whose cases they must preside over or the lawyers in their courts.

Why does the state bar even allow lawyers to contribute to judge's campaigns? It seems like it should be unethical at least.

As for me, if I ever need a lawyer I am going to pick the one who has buttered up the judge at campaign time. While I don't agree with the process, it certainly doesn't hurt your case if your lawyer has "helped" the judge or the district attorney.