Wednesday, November 6, 2013

 
MARY ESTHER GARCIA ACKNOWLEDGES VALIDITY OF TEC COMPLAINT, BASED ON ABOVE LOGO
 
I will note her last known logo did add the word "for."  I say last known because she has since deactivated her web page.  When I could not get in I had several other people check and was told she has deactivated it.  She does seem to have a web page under construction.
 
See, TEC findings:  Mary Esther Garcia acknowledged the following ""she held an elective public office that she did not hold"
 
Because Luis Sorola has been so adamant that JP's need to be held accountable under the law, I am taking her stipulations directly to the AG.  They have jurisdiction over crimes related to the election code.
 
We all know DA Saenz will not do his job.  He will open an investigation against JP Erin Garcia on no evidence, while misrepresenting the law to the AG, to settle a score with Ernie Hernandez for endorsing Carlos "No Más" Masso, but will turn a blind eye to Mary Esther Garcia's violation of  § 255.006 of the Texas Elections Code.
 
§ 255.006. MISLEADING USE OF OFFICE TITLE. 
 
(a) A person  commits an offense if the person knowingly enters into a contract or
other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political
advertising with the intent to represent to an ordinary and prudent
person that a candidate holds a public office that the candidate
does not hold at the time the agreement is made.

 (b)  A person commits an offense if the person knowingly
represents in a campaign communication that a candidate holds a
public office that the candidate does not hold at the time the
representation is made.
 
(e)  An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor."
 
MARY ESTHER GARCIA, PART OF THE PRIVILEGED CLASS AGAINST WHOM THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY.
 
Oh, yes let's not forget the sanctions against her mommy dearest, Sofia Benavidas     - Click for Sanctions            
 
 

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

The comment is rejected for its nastiness and distractions. If you knew anything about this rule, which you obviously do not, you could research all TEC rulings, and they never issue monetary sanctions for violation of this rule.

This is part of the problem with the TEC. the legislature creates criminal statutes which they refuse to enforce.

I never expected a monetary sanction based on the known history of how the TEC enforces the rule - they ruling is clear - she violated it and she agreed to not violate it in the future.

Bobby WC