Friday, October 25, 2013


Now that I have read DA Saenz Letter to AG Abbott it reads like gibberish and outright includes misrepresentation of what Texas Government Code 25.0002 actually says. This dude has no conscience - you will also note no one on his staff could determine the correct address for seeking AG Opinions.


Cameron county has no choice but to hire outside counsel to represent Erin Garcia.  As the BV has documented the county whether the county or district clerk cannot charge a fee for the 72 Hour Waivers. This is essential to Erin Garcia's defense.  Even Saenz admits if this is true then the JP's can charge a fee.  The problem is, once the county states Erin Garcia's defense on the issue it becomes an admission that Aurora de la Garza illegally charged a fee.  Legally the county attorneys cannot make conflicting arguments in different cases.  Cameron county cannot represent Erin Garcia because of this conflict.  Their only choice is to hire outside counsel.


A boycott will destroy Cascos' credibility with Space X and cost him the election

Carlos Cascos and Luis Saenz are lucky I am not Erin Garcia because if I were I would have a private attorney filing an answer for me come Monday morning with a third-party claim against the county for attorneys fees and an allegation of a conspiracy between Carlos Cascos and Luis Saenz to obstruct justice and to deny me a defense.

Click for Request for AG Opinion

The obvious bias in the letter is in the fact he makes no mention of the other 2 JP’s he knows are engaged in the same conduct. Why? Bias. I will reporting Monday the incredulous love affair Carlos Cascos has with DA Saenz and how it played into the decision to give Space X a Special Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, but not authorizing the county attorneys to file a defense for Erin Garcia. Erin Garcia cannot defend herself in the public light without court pleadings. Carlos Cascos’ clear conduct is designed to keep the negative story going while denying Judge Garcia a public voice through counsel.

This AG Opinion request is a con-job designed to deny Erin Garcia a defense and Carlos Cascos is party to it. Cascos wants to delay a defense long enough to get an AG opinion against Erin Garcia. Since Cascos wants to play unethical games, on Monday I will start one by one with all of our private conversations including a conspiracy to fire a county employee, and his select words for Sofia Benavidas..

When you read the request he seems to adopt my position that the law is uncertain (this is the part which was read to me over the phone) but then to cover for the uncertainty he outright misrepresents what is in Texas Government Code 25.0002.

You will note Saenz verifies Montoya lied about the cost of the marriage - in fact $150, not $250, and the waiver fee is $25 not $40. In a separate post I have the documents to show that in the federal case no waiver fee was charged. This coupled was played by Sorola.

On the top of page three Saenz states the following:

"We note that Texas Government Code section 25.0002. while not directly applicable to the situation at hand, does define "family law cases and proceeding" as cases and proceeding under Titles I. 2. 4, and 5 of the Texas Family Code."

It says no such thing. Saenz statement is a complete and total fabrication of what it says.

Here is what Texas Government Code 25.0002 actually says.

In this chapter, "family law cases and proceedings" includes cases and proceedings involving adoptions, birth records, or removal of disability of minority or coverture; change of names of persons; child welfare, custody, support and reciprocal support, dependency, neglect, or delinquency

Click for Code

There are two important variables here, the definition only applies to the chapter in which it appears, and two it includes delinquency proceedings.

All of the following is from Title Three of the Family Law Code which DA Saenz says does not apply. §  25.0002 clearly states it includes delinquency cases

Click for Code


(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 person is 12 years of age or older;

(2) the juvenile court has waived its original jurisdiction under this section

Section 51.03(b)(2) of the Family Law Code provides:


(a) Delinquent conduct is(a) Delinquent conduct is: (1) conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates a penal law of this state or of the United States punishable by imprisonment or by confinement in jail; (2) conduct that violates a lawful order of a court under circumstances that would constitute contempt of that court in: (A) a justice or municipal court; or (B) a county court for conduct punishable only by a fine; (3) conduct that violates Section 49.04, 49.05, 49.06, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code; or (4) conduct that violates Section 106.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol by a minor (third or subsequent offense).

(b) Conduct indicating a need for supervision is: (1) subject to Subsection (f), conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates: (A) the penal laws of this state of the grade of misdemeanor that are punishable by fine only; or (B) the penal ordinances of any political subdivision of this state; (2) the absence of a child on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period from school;


Anonymous said...

Your research omits the 2013 amendments to the govt code


Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0002 (2013)

§ 25.0002. Definitions

In this chapter:
(1) "Criminal law cases and proceedings" includes cases and proceedings for allegations of conduct punishable in part by confinement in the county jail not to exceed one year.
(2) "Family law cases and proceedings" includes cases and proceedings under Titles 1, 2, 4, and 5, Family Code.
(3) "Juvenile law cases and proceedings" includes all cases and proceedings brought under Title 3, Family Code.
(4) "Mental health cases and proceedings" includes all cases and proceedings brought under Chapter 462, Health and Safety Code, or Subtitle C or D, Title 7, Health and Safety Code.

HISTORY: Enacted by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148 (S.B. 895), § 4.01, effective September 1, 1987; am. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3 (H.B. 79), § 4.01, effective January 1, 2012.


2011 amendment,
rewrote the section, which read: "In this chapter, 'family law cases and proceedings' includes cases and proceedings involving adoptions, birth records, or removal of disability of minority or coverture; change of names of persons; child welfare, custody, support and reciprocal support, dependency, neglect, or delinquency; paternity; termination of parental rights; divorce and marriage annulment, including the adjustment of property rights, custody and support of minor children involved therein, temporary support pending final hearing, and every other matter incident to divorce or annulment proceedings; independent actions involving child support, custody of minors, and wife or child desertion; and independent actions involving controversies between parent and child, between parents, and between spouses."; and made a stylistic change in the section heading.

Also, the AG website gives the address for opinion requests that the DA is using.

BobbyWC said...

Which took effect September 1, 2013 - this is key - the federal case is from May - under the old law

Facts do matter

All your posts do is verify how misleading Saenz was in his letter by not including the dates of the subject dispute

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

you are also wrong on the address issue

Office of the Attorney General
Attention Opinion Committee
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

If you do not put OPinion COmmittee the letter goes into the general mail pool and can take days to get forwarded to the correct office.

BObby WC

Anonymous said...

If facts matter why didn't you at least mention what current code says-if even in a footnote.

If facts matter why did you say that the DA addressed it to wrong address when that's clearly not the case.

You conveniently ignore or mislead the readers about fact that do not fit you narrative. And yet you have the gall to say that facts matter when someone politely corrects you about your factual mistakes?

BobbyWC said...

I just reviewed the documents I have and there are no waivers signed after September 1, 2013 - which means there is no evidence to show she assumed jurisdiction in a waiver case after Sept 1, 2013 - now my copies may be incomplete - how about Montoya post a waiver signed after Sept 1, 2013, and I will say we have a problem.

But if there is, did the JP school include this issue in the Legislative Update class the JP's had to attend. I can assure you the appellate courts have provided a grace period for the judges. I have seen mandamuses wherein I win the issue but then the appellate court finds that the law had just changed and while the judge had a duty to know the law, the law was still too new for everyone to know.

I would get the mandamus, but the court would basically make excuses for the judge.

The judges have to know the law. Judges make mistakes all of the time especially when the new laws are taking effect. They are reveresed on appeal but not criminally prosecuted.

As of September 1, 2013, to the extend the Government Code definition applies the law did change.

But I have seen zero evidence of any waivers signed after September 1, 2013. If you have one I will post it.

Now I suspect that notwithstanding the language the definition only applies to the government code, the courts will adopt it to the family code.

So now we are down to one question - did she sign any waivers on or after September 1, 2013.

If I were Louis Sorola I would electronically nonsuit Erin Garcia today before private attorneys start working for her and file the motion for sanctions.

Once the motion for sanctions is filed, a dismissal has no effect on the motion for sanctions - it still moves forward.

His clients case was in May I believe - long before the September 1, 2013 changes

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Our posts cross - and facts do matter - if there are no signed waivers after September 1, 2013, why would the new law matter?

It does not

But again - produce a waiver signed after September 1, 2013, and the BV will be the first to say there is a potential problem

The government code limits where its definition applies, but I know enough to know the courts will adopt it over to the family law code so I will not try an argue otherwise.

But I also know the courts will run cover for any judge on the issue because of the confusion.

But answer me this, why did Luis Saenz not list the dates of the alleged infractures and the old and new code so the AG could properly address the question? Why did he not include the other JPs who have signed waivers?

Answer - bias and dirty politics plain and simple.

I am certain Erins attorneys will point out to the AG Saenz's deception in his request

Bobby WC