Wednesday, December 18, 2013


RAUL SALAZAR GETS 10 MONTHS,
 COURT COSTS, BUT NO FINE

I have read Montoya's rendition of the facts, and they reflect the fact he was not even in the courtroom. I am assuming what he knows he got from Zeke Silva. Even after the bailiff directed everyone in the court to turn off their phones, Zeke Silva went over to the Herald reporter and was texting someone while speaking with the reporter. Apparently when you have the protection of Saenz you can ignore direct orders of the court.

Montoya seen below "I lie because my moronic readers love to be deceived so I can earn money for my child support."    Remember, Montoya was not there.  This never happened.  I will post a document which explains what Mr. Warner was talking about, and why Luis Saenz himself came to court to participate in In Camera discussions with Justice Hinojosa.

This is just an outright lie.

"We should not send him to jail because he was only following the orders of his boss Ernie Hernandez," attorney Larry Warner told visiting judge Federico Hinojosa. "Ernie Hernandez is the one who should be here."


 
As my last night post noted the bond on Raul Salazar had to have reflected Justice Hinojosa's belief that Ernie Hernandez orchestrated retaliation against HR employees.  Justice Hinojosa, and rightfully so, did not allow for the witnesses to verify the perjury until such time as the Motion for New Trial.
THE SENTENCING
 
Rightfully so, and as argued by ADA Gus Garza, Justice Hinojosa found that Raul Garza did not learn from his previous conviction for the same crimes.  This is why Justice Hinojosa ordered a Pre Sentence Investigation. He wanted a record of the previous conviction.  At this stage the 10 months is a proper sentence - as Gus Garza pointed out a juror told the lawyers and Justice Hinojosa this must stop.  My leanings are toward the socialist model of justice which finds that public corruption is a crime against all of the people and all of the people are victims.  Judges in socialist countries typically hand down a lot longer sentences for public corruption than we do in the US. 
 
At this stage everything is solid.  There is nothing to appeal.  BUT once the motion for new trial is heard, if the new trial is not granted there will be a solid appellate issue.
 
A notice of appeal was filed because either a Notice of Appeal of Motion for New Trial has to be filed to invoke the rule which mandates bail pending appeal or the Motion for New Trial.
 
Let me finish uploading this document filed by Mr. Warner and you will see how Montoya outright lied in is post.
 
 WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHY SAENZ JOINED THE HEARING
 
A judge does not just reduce bond from $150,000 to $30,000 for no reason.  I believe it has to do with what I discussed in my first post today on this case.  If you doubt me the motion attached is what they in part discussed in chambers.  I know this because Mr. Warner made a reference that he is amending this motion to change one sentence as he had discussed in chambers.
 
 
I am running late in posting because like the reporter for News 5 and the Herald I stayed behind to speak with Mr. Warner.  I tried to get him to discuss this motion, not knowing it had been filed, but he declined.  So I went to the court to get a copy of his last minute filings and discovered this motion.
 
At common law you could not convict a lessor conspirator until you convicted the principal.  What Mr. Warner was saying to the court was not that Ernie Hernandez had done anything wrong, which in fact Mr. Warner went out of his way to say he had not, but that because Ernie Hernandez who is the principal according to DA Saenz, not Mr. Warner, had failed to be indict or convicted the court should consider this during sentencing, in the interest of justice.  Click for the above motion - same basic discussion along with perjury discussion 
 
The Motion supported by case law shows that because of the alleged perjury in the case, the court has no choice but to consider the alleged perjury in its ruling.  Whether it will change the sentencing at a later date,  or result in a new trial we will not know until Justice Hinojosa hears the motion.
 
You do not call down the elected DA of the county to an In Camera hearing with a judge in a misdemeanor case unless you are panicking.  Also in the courtroom was Rene Gonzalez, second in command under Luis Saenz.
 
People can spin this all they want, but the bond was reduced by $120,000, and the elected DA participated in the In Camera hearing over a misdemeanor charge.  Someone is nervous.
 
Like I said, at this point the sentence was correct - hell I would have given the full year.  But this is separate from the Motion for New Trial.  It is way past the time table for Saenz to inform Justice Hinojosa of the inaccurate testimony.  When the hearing comes, this will be an issue before the court.
 
I will also tell you Saenz personally offered a plea deal of probation if Raul Salazar would just turn on Ernie Hernandez.  I was told that the lawyer Saenz met with made it clear - Raul Salazar is not going to commit perjury for Luis Saenz.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

In your opinion, is it correct for an individual not to be sent to jail because he was following the orders of his Boss or should the individual have ignored his orders? Perhaps in this case was the Mr. Salazar acting in his own without being ordered by his Boss?
Yes, perhaps perjury may have been committed in the trial but was the defended innocent of any wrong doing? If so, let the court go after the individuals that committed perjury.

BobbyWC said...

Where do people like you learn to read? Did you not read where I said I would have given him a longer sentence than 10 months. My opinion and the law are separate things.

We have no way of knowing how the alleged perjury impacted the jury verdict.

The law, not me, provides for new trials for this type nonsense - your problem is you do not like me pointing out the law and then you claim I think he should go free even though I said I would have given him a longer sentence.

At was at the trial. Nearly ever witness changed their testimony from what they told Investigator ramizer - does that bother you.

If what the Cadriel family is saying is true, that Roberto lied about the drowning incident and that he has been intellectually disabled since birth, does hie lie not bother you and his admission that he was changing his testimony from what he told Investigator Ramirez. Does it matter to you that this Intellectually Disabled person was in fear of Saenz pulling his probation. Do you not see how someone intellectually diaabled can be bullied into changing their testimony if they believe their probation can be pulled.

There is a lot for the court to review

bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Since it is a given that just about everyone in Brownsville is a bald face liar, how the hell do you purpose they run the judicial system? I suggest you move to Utah where at least a few souls speak the truth. You are heading for full blown nervous breakdown, defending the local chusma.

BobbyWC said...

What you hate is I am reporting facts which do not support what you want. Do you propose we change the law. Maybe you should appear as a concerned citizen before Juatice Hinojosa at the next hearing and demand to be heard. Then you can explain to him why because this is Cameron county he should just ignore the law and facts and do what you want - yes justice lynch mob style

Cases are reversed all of the time on these issues all over the US.

I note how you make no comment where I go out of my way to note Gus Garza's argument for jail time was well taken and how I agreed with him.

It is called reporting the facts with an objective opinion of the facts.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

The second comment is rejected because the person is too stupid to be allowed comments.

Gus Garza was taken to jail until his bond was posted - the picture being used by Montoya could not be from today.

Do you people even think before you post? What made you think I was going to let through mindless insults

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

10 months ?? This is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!!

BobbyWC said...

Well the max was 12 months - so not much of a difference - but like I said I would have given more.

But on the otherside, the Motion for New Trial either now or on appeal will mean reversal anyway.

What makes me mad instead of blaming Saenz for another failed case because of corruption in the process people will claim Ernie Hernandez paid of which ever judge grants the new trial whether the trial court or the court of appeals.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Do you know what time the county commissioners meeting is tonight? Saenz is trying to circumvent the texas occupations code 2153 tonight.

Anonymous said...

Evidence doesn't matter! This DA is about charging people with crimes so he can get the publicity so it looks like he's actually doing something. He took the blind fold off lady justice and I'm sure she would take flight if she could, after seeing what's going on in Cameron County. Why have blind justice when you can kill ALL your political enemies and push your agenda regardless of respecting your office and the law.

Anonymous said...

The item on 2153 has been tabled again until Monday. I'm told it's not been very public. No matter your opinion on 8 liners or sweepstakes, this is a civil liberties violation. A local DA or county should not be permitted to pick and apply or not apply state codes and law evenly across the board. "King Louie" and Cascos will be held accountable to multiple civil suits from applicants. The machines ARE NOT considered illegal by the state, so why should Cameron County be allowed to be the only county in the state to pick pieces of what Texas deems legal and deny the issuances of permit stickers. If passed I am ready to apply and sue the County and the DAs office
If allowed, any county could not allow juke boxes, pool tables, foos ball tables, darts, etc. This is not a moral issue it's a civil rights violation. If an operator pays more than $5 cash the operator breaks the law. STATE law. How can people sit by idly while this is happening? It's a power play that will be followed up by consecutive "moral" issues. He may make being gay illegal. He'll close down legal head shops because they sell paraphernalia, make alcohol illegal. RESPECT THE LAW OFFICIALS. if someone breaks the law arrest them but don't subjugate the electorate to " your" rule!

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is that the gentleman is guilty of wrong doing. The hiring and falsification of documents did not happen without the consent or the instructions of persons with influence at the county political level. Como dice la gente, "se hacen pendejos por les conviene". If there is a retrial the gentleman is not going to be less guilty of wrong doing. It just means more tax dollars going to waste to cover up for the politicians in power.

BobbyWC said...

To the bottom line comment you comment blows me away at so many levels. Unless you were a witness you have no way of know if he was guilty. To a person wuth the exception Robeto Cadriel all of the blame was put on Robert Lopez.

Now I will say that intitial statements by one person that Raul told her to take the case was changed later when the hero in the story disclosed that this person admitted to Dalia to lying and then she changed her story to Robert Lopez.

Second, and this is what blows my mind - you are saying the law should be enforced against Raul Salazar but not against those who lied or those who knew they lied.

This simple reality proves your interest is not the law, but based on a hatred for the Hernandez family.

Third, this happens all over the country every day in every city and every county without the political people knowing.

I can assure you I am not a fan of A.R. Flores for moving Dalia - she proved to be the hero who would protect the integrity in the system.

My personal opinion is he moved her to send a message to all HR personnel being honest will not be tolerated. A. R. Flores did not act at anyone's request - he wanted to send a message to the commissioners that he was in charge and that the one person who was the honest person in all of those was out. But you know what HR chiefs do this every day every where. It is wrong - they do it for corporate heads and elected officials. YOu simply have no sense of reality

Having said all of that, I am not saying Raul is innocent. Like I said I would have given him more than 10 months, but that does not mean my position will not change once the truth about the inaccurate testimony comes out.

I will stand with the law. If the law says he gets a new trial - instead of attacking Raul how about attacking Gus Garza for using witnesses who lied.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

"Innocent until proven guilty"

All court documents indicate that the gentleman was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Therefore any idiot (your expression) can tell you that the gentleman is guilty. He has the right to appeal his case or request a new trial but until he is proven innocent he is guilty.

Gus Garza is not on trial. He has not been indicted of any wrong doing.

BobbyWC said...

I am have idea how to deal with such ignorant people = I have been clear because of the verdict at this point I would have given him a longer sentence - how is that not clear to you.

You tried to make an argument it is a waste of taxpayer money to retry him. It is not - if the verdict was secured with false testimony then he may not be guilty.

Bit for now as I have clearly stated I would have given him a longer sentence.

I cannot be any more clear

bobby WC