Wednesday, October 23, 2013


This morning, and rightfully so an attorney with commissioners court asked all JP's to stop signing 72 hour waivers until further research can be done on the issue.  I have no problem with this.  This is good policy.

Saenz, being political, instead of waiting on legal guidance based on the county's research had the grand jury issue a subpoena on Judge Erin Garcia for her marriage logs and receipts.  It is clear Saenz is putting his political vengeance ahead of commonsense.

If he knows the county is seeking clarification on the issue, why would he undermine the attorneys with the county and in fact the county attorney representing Erin Garcia by convening a grand jury investigation?

This is complete and total dirty politics.  Sanez learned nothing from his dirty conduct in the Manuel Velez case.

The county is financially exposed.  Judge Cascos needs to convene an emergency meeting of commissioners court so that Erin Garcia's attorney can file the proper paperwork with the federal court.  By not convening commissioners court, Carlos Cascos will come across as taking sides.

The biggest victim in all of this could be the people of Cameron county.

It is time Carlos Cascos publicly demand that DA Saenz seek an attorney general opinion on the matter.

This nonsense of nasty politics to influence elections must end.

If a crime has been committed I will be the first to demand a conviction.  But with an unclear law any competent DA first seeks an AG opinion.

On the issue of the fee, I am now not sure what to think.  I was shocked to learn the practice of judges, all judges all over the state, of charging for the marriage is a tradition and not authorized by statute.  So the question then becomes if the tradition is for all judges to charge for services related to marriage, then why can they not charge for the waiver?

The only real issue is does a JP have authority to issue the waiver?  At best the family law code is unclear on the issue.

For the record, the legislature needs to fix this and regulate all fees for marriage.  All fees should be set by the legislature and not the judges.


Anonymous said...

Luis doesn't have to wait for nobody. He is the DA and there is enough evidence against Erin pocketing the money. To bad you can't defend her in court Bobby. It would be awesome for you to go head to head in court against Luis Saenz and the federal court. As of right now it is only your interpretation of the law and Luis has the authority to ask the grand jury to indict or not. He doesn't have to ask the AG opinion on every decision he makes. The law is very clear on this one. Did she or didn't she keep and pocket the money? Have you asked Erin that question Bobby or do you know the answer? If not then ask her SHOW ME THE MONEY....

BobbyWC said...

First of all your entire post is all BS and ignores everything I have said.

My issue is not with going to the grand jury - it is with rushing to the grand jury while he knows county attorneys are trying to sort it out

It was and remains a political stunt.

You say he does not have to go to the AG - well news flash - I just got a call that Louis Saenz has gone to the AG and in his request indicated the law is unclear.

This makes his entire actions now - proof he is acting in bad-faith.

I have stated that the law appears no one can collect a fee. If that is the case then the collecting of the fee is wrong - how much clearer can I be.

The law is not clear about whether she can sign the 72 hour waiver - the family law code clearly gives JP's jurisdiction over juvenile cases. There is no confusion on this - it is black and white.

The fact you refuse to even acknowledge what is in the family law code is proof you have no interest in the facts.

But even with that I am not willing to call it - but there are only two answers - yes the family law code is clear and gives JP's jurisdiction in juvenile cases [which it does btw] or the law is not clear if it means cases under the family law code or just divorce and custody proceedings. If it is not clear then it becomes unenforceable as vague and unconstitutional.

Facts matter - try using them

Finally, I do not believe the issue of the fee has been disputed _ I have not said no fee is being charged - in fact her clerk told me they charge $25 and not $40, and that they have no idea where Montoya is getting the $250 number for a wedding during court hours. The clerk told me Judge Garcia's log will show that is totally false.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Does everybody need to agree with you and if not they are idiots? If that is the case then I should just move on from this page because it is obvious it is your blog and only you have a brain and everyone else is stupid and attacking.

BobbyWC said...

Move on - you are not needed here - you are a liar - all of the time I tell people who disagree with me that their questions are valid and thank them for extending the discussion.

So as a liar I prefer you move on to pages which accept the comments of liars and fools

bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Somehow a comment is not posting - the person is saying I am refusing to say if Erin Garcia kept the money or gave it to the clerk - whether 5 or 40 dollars.

I stated what her clerk told me

What this person refuses to accept is, the clerks cannot charge a fee - so how do you give the money to a clerk who by law cannot charge a fee.

I have just called every major District Clerk in the state - I will report on what they told me tomorrow - _ I am running late for a doctors appointment - but Aurora de la Garza is the only district clerk claiming a right to collect a fee.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

What IS the jurisdiction granted to JPs over juveniles?

BobbyWC said...

54.021(b) A county, justice, or municipal court may exercise
jurisdiction over a person alleged to have engaged in conduct
indicating a need for supervision by engaging in conduct described
in Section 51.03(b)(2) in a case where:
(1) the juvenile court has waived its original
jurisdiction under this section; and
(2) a complaint is filed by the appropriate authority
in the county, justice, or municipal court charging an offense
under Section 25.094, Education Code.

Click for Family Law code

Anonymous said...

This is a big test for Luis to see whether he is going to stand up against the corruption of the old boys network here. There is nothing to ask a AG opinion ( and as I'm sure you are aware-but did not tell your readers-AG opinions are not law and do not have the binding authority of law) on. She is clearly charging a fees she is not authorized to charge to issue an order she is not authorized to charge. That other jp have done is of no issue. Imagine limas asserting a defense that other judge took bribes so it's ok.

As a former prosecutor, this is a pretty cut and dry criminal case. If Luis is serious about taking a stand against corruption he'll proceed quickly on this. The hernandez's influence and money is the only thing that woul stop a state indictment. That might have been enough in the past but hopefully it's not enough now. Regardless if Saenz doesn't act, the Feds will.

BobbyWC said...

First of all any monkey can claim they are a former prosecutor - if you are so proud of yourself and so confident in your legal acumen, why not post your name.

You post reads - blah blah blah -

Why not do what you would have to do in court and refute what I am saying - hows does the Family Law Code not give the JPs jurisdiction in juvenile cases and that being the case how can you say it is black and white she has no authority.

I have yet to say with certainty because I see the vagueness problem.

We both know you have never been in court or are simply posting BS - no judge would take your argument seriously because you refuse to even address the issue

Does the family law code give JP's limited jurisdiction in juvenile cases? You cannot say no, so you simply pretend it is not there.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

So that's what you base jurisdiction on? Quite a stretch of the imagination, I'd say.

If I understand your convoluted and feeble attempt to attach jurisdiction to the obviously illegal acts done in these cases, I would restate it, thusly:

JPs might possibly have jurisdiction
of a child's case if the child is a child in need of supervision and, if the Juvenile Court waives its jurisdiction over the child and allows the JP to exercise jurisdiction over the child regarding offenses in the Traffic, Penal and Education Codes.

Then JPs have jurisdiction to hear criminal complaints against juveniles.

Actually, there is no jurisdiction, UNLESS the Juvenile Court WAIVES its jurisdiction, which WAS NOT done.

The bases of the jurisdiction for the cases a JP can handle fall under the Traffic Code, Penal Code and Education Code. The Family Code allows jurisdiction to a JP, only if the Juvenile Court WAIVES its jurisdiction to hear those cases and if the child is "a child in need of supervision."

Otherwise, guess what? No jurisdiction. Therefore, no authority to sign Marriage Waivers.

Also, the fact that she had no authority or jurisdiction to sign a Waiver means she was not acting within her judicial capacity and therefore, NOT IMMUNE from prosecution.

Anyway, the reference to the Family Code is based on jurisdiction over Marriages, Divorces, SAPCRs, Enforcement, , etc., not Juvenile Justice complaints.

Why would a Judge with "possible" or "conditional" jurisdiction over Juvenile Justice matters have authority to deal with Marriages?

Splain that one.

You, Sir, are a mercenary paid to defend corrupt politicians, just admit it.

The Machiavellian

BobbyWC said...

Here is the proof your entire post is nonsense and based on bias

"You, Sir, are a mercenary paid to defend corrupt politicians, just admit it.

I and only I spent thousands of my own dollars going after Villalobos and Limas in federal court to force their criminal prosecution.

I am the one in the Hernandez Pena case who went after Ernie every day during the trial and posted the transcript on the internet for everyone to see and read for themselves.

I am the one who filed the criminal complaint in Austin with the AG which got Margarita Ozuna prosecuted for her work for Ernie Hernandez

These are facts which you hate and proof you have no interest in facts.

I said from day one and continue to say I am not saying with certainty that the JP's have jurisdiction - all I am saying is the provision raises a question - another fact you hate

Also your argument about jurisdiction is so stupid I do not even know how to respond

The provision is in the family law code - how do you know the legislature only intended it to related to domestic issues?

And in my post I raised this issue - I do not see the courts under the rules of construction to give statutes broad interpretation giving it such a narrow interpretation

And as to your argument that unless the juvenile judge has referred a case the code does not give the JP's jurisdiction is just plain stupid.

That is not how it works - the code gives jurisdiction under certain conditions - that is all that matters.

As to the void orders, I have some nearly 20 mandamuses against judges for void orders in cases wherein they did not have jurisdiction.

After the first one I sued for my client in federal court. The AG came back and argued and the federal courts agreed with the AG an order which is void for want of jurisdiction is not the type scenario which invisions a lost of immunity because if it did every judge hit with a mandamus for want of jurisdiction could and would be sued.

I am the first person who would love the US Supreme Court to overrule such rulings. I am the one attacked all of the time for going after corrupt judges - trust me no one has worked harder to make it easier to sue judges than I have and I have been attacked endlessly by Montoya for my work in that area - anther fact you hate

Bobby WC