Friday, January 24, 2014



Indictments 1-6 can end up being dismissed depending on what Justice Hinojosa rules on March  13, 2014, [originally said February]  in the Raul Salazar case.  The evidence of perjury is pretty black and white.  This kills all claims related to Robert Cadriel.  It will be for Justice Hinojosa to decide the perjury issues.  On file in the Raul Salazar case is a 40 page Motion outlining the perjury used by Saenz and Gus Garza to secure the conviction of Raul Salazar.  This is why Saenz moved now on Ernie Hernandez, he fears Justice Hinojosa's ruling so he acted in advance of the ruling, without regard for the perjury.

This is why I was blocked from the press conference.  Saenz knew I would have asked about the perjury allegations and the press would have covered it.

Normally it would not matter because the issue is one of collateral impeachment.  This means perjury on a fact not part of the alleged criminal act.  What makes it an issue is Gus Garza spent a good 12 minutes of his 15 minutes of closing inflaming the jury with the perjury.

Count 7 is laughable.  Count seven was done by the trio of Carlos Cascos, Cris Valadez and Juan Montoya.  Montoya posted endless stories fed to him by Cascos and Valadez demanding David Garcia lose his pay with the RMA.  This is documented and all of Montoya's posts will be put into evidence.  I will bet the farm Cascos, Valadez and Montoya will take the Fifth.

Here are your real trio who went after David Garcia.  The three need to be indicted in federal court and spend a good amount of time in federal prison for aiding Saenz to indict Ernie Hernandez for what they did.  The proof is not controverted. 

Ernie needs to bring a federal lawsuit to stop this and prove it was in fact Cascos, Valadez, and Montoya and that Saenz has intentionally used perjured testimony to protect Cascos and nail Hernandez.  Carlos Cascos has no shame and is in a conspiracy with Saenz.  He needs to be indicted in federal court for his conspiracy with Saenz.

Cris Valadez to avoid jail will turn on all of them in a New York second.  Montoya will sit on the stand dumbfounded and lie about everything - and no judge will believe him.

As to count 8 Ernie Hernandez needs to agree to a lie detector test with the FBI as to what his conversation was with Barrera.  If it is what a source told me, Barrera will never testify, but most certainly possibly face perjury, or claim Victor Cortez intentionally misused his testimony.  I will say this,  the claim is Saenz is retaliating for Hernandez filing a complaint about selective enforcement.  My source is second hand so only time will tell.  But if it is true, then Saenz is bringing criminal charges against Hernandez for filing a complaint about Saenz selective enforcement and favoritism as to who he was shutting down and when, in terms of the 8 Liner cases.  In fact what we have is official oppression by Saenz against Hernandez for filing a complaint concerning Saenz selective enforcement.

Saenz banned me from the press conference because he knew I understood all of these issues and did not want them aired in front of the press.  I will see Saenz in court and the press will then get the entire story. 


Anonymous said...

I am confused Bobby, I distinctly remember on more than one of your past posts saying that you would support Cascos. You even wrote that you would block walk for him...what gives?

Anonymous said...

Do You think Victor, who was tortured and almost lost his life, would do wrong to people? Do his loyalty to Saenz would go against his better judgment? Seriously?

Anonymous said...

A very simple question to you, is Ernie innocent of any wrong doing?

BobbyWC said...

I am just getting I from a long morning of meetings. Since this last post is the most intelligent post I will begin here.

Answer: I do not know. I am not a witness to anything unlike Montoya and all of the haters/

In the Pedrazo case the grand jury indicted him and Justice Chew dismissed the case on no evidence/

A grand jury as they say will indict a ham sandwich if asked.

The selection of grand juries is designed to allow the DA to pick the most easily influenced people he can find. Some day someone will challenge the constitutionality of the process and win.

IN the Salazar case I said I think the jury got the verdict correct. I sat through the trial and considered the admissible evidence and formed an opinion.

I stand by that opinion. Now I am familiar with the verified facts in the Motion for New trial and believe if they can overcome the problem of collateral impeachment Salazar will get a new trial. Does this mean the jury was wrong - no - the jury was unaware of the perjury.

In Ernie's case I will sit through the trial - hopefully the judge will allow me to blog the trial live so the community can hear the evidence live.

At the end of the trial I will form an opinion.

No one went after Villalobos the way I did. But I think the jury over did it on some of the counts. I have said the evidence of the bribes was very, very weak. My opinion is based on having sat through the trial.

Until you hear the evidence you have no way of knowing if he is innocent or guilty

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

On the Victor question - it is his call - he knows what happened - will he tell the truth or lie for Saenz. He took what he had to have known was a bad order - he should have refused - he will now live with that decision

The lawyers I have spoken with are disgusted by his conduct. I have yet to speak with a judge.

The First Amendment matters - so it seems to me he has no reason why he went through what he went through other than he was following orders - and that is dangerous

Bobby WC

On Cascos - I stand by my comment when I made it - but I have since learned he is a really bad and dangerous person- you know what I do not stand with bad people just because at one time I thought they were good

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

So do you think Cascos actually lost his last election? Do think he had someone lose a few vote boxes to ensure his win? There are people that will go to their grave saying he did.

BobbyWC said...

Having been a witness to none of this how would I know?

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...


You would think you could get the headline correct. It is COST the election, not CAUSE the election.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your answer. We all know that a person is innocent of any wrong doing until proven guilty by a court of law. If so, let justice prevail and allow those who have the burden to prove him guilty do their job.
If Ernie did nothing wrong let him fight to prove his innocence.

Anonymous said...

That suit really fits Victor Cortez!!! It won't be long before the book burnings begin! So long, first amendment it was nice knowing you. It was good while it lasted!

Anonymous said...

No wonder you lost your law license. You can't distinguish between a criminal trial and a press conference. What an idiot you are.

Your post:

""Though the public acquires information about trials chiefly through the press and electronic media, the press is not imbued with any special right of access. Rather, the media possesses "the same right of access as the public . . . so that they may report what people in attendance have seen and heard" ( Richmond Newspapers, 448 US at 573"

As is abundantly evident the case is about access to "criminal trials." not "press conferences" But you delude your Kool-Aid drinking, ignorant "readers" with your usual mumbo jumbo.

The Court in Richmond:

In the context of trials, the First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time the First Amendment was adopted.

Your post:

Saenz ordered the "press conference" to be behind closed doors on the 3rd floor of the Administration building. When I got there Saenz ordered an armed investigator to keep me out along with anyone else who did not have press credentials. Gus Garza demanded I show my press credentials before he would let me in the behind closed doors press conference.

The holding in Richmond:

The court reversed a closure order excluding the press and the public from a murder trial. Defendant had moved that the trial be closed in order to prevent leaks to the media which could then be seen by jurors. Appellant newspaper reporters' motion to vacate the closure order was denied and their writs of mandamus and prohibition were dismissed. Although the trial had long since ended, the underlying dispute was not moot because it was capable of repetition, yet evading review. As to the merits, the right of the press and the public to attend criminal trials was implicit in the guarantees of the U.S. Const. amend. I. The trial court made no findings to support closure. Various tested alternatives existed to satisfy the constitutional demands of fairness in a trial, but none were considered to deal with potential problems with the witnesses and the jury. Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case had to be open to the public.

And there you have it: your BS exposed for what it is, BS.

This is typical of how inept you are at discerning the law from a case. Similar to how you claim "family law cases" includes "juvenile justice cases" in order to protect the "judge" you consulted on your bogus defense of JP Garcia.


I'll be posting this on Montoya's blog too, so you can't censor me.

Anonymous said...

Victor was
Doing his job. Get over it!
He is a person of integrity trying to wipe out corruption. Don't ruin it for him. Lead follow or get out of the way.

BobbyWC said...

Like every con artists you seem to leave out the key language - the press has no special rights of access - that is what I said and that is the right

"""Though the public acquires information about trials chiefly through the press and electronic media, the press is not imbued with any special right of access. Rather, the media possesses "the same right of access as the public . . . so that they may report what people in attendance have seen and heard" ( Richmond Newspapers, 448 US at 573"

Now tell my readers why you use misleading information about me - lies, and then not include in your post the holding wherein it says the press has no special privileges over anyone else in terms of access - which is my point.

I beat Saenz and everyone else in the lawless town with every Open Records Challenge to date.

My appellate record as a lawyer is solid. Which is why I am consulted all over the state.

Please tell my readers why you left this part out of the post?

"the press is not imbued with any special right of access"

Answer - Saenz and you are desperate to mislead and con people.


Given the reversal record of Art McDonald should he lose his law license

Give the fact Justice Chew found Saenz did not have any evidence against Pedrazo and dismissed the criminal charges should Saenz lose his law license?

You're a con artist who supports public corruption and you only made Saenz look worse as you type posters always do which is why I love posting your lies and stupid comments

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

No victor has agreed to engage in criminal conduct upon demand from Saenz - he can either come forward and admit to the facts or face the consequences.

Why is it Raul Salazar was not just doing his job if it is in fact true Ernie Hernandez ordered him to break the law? If you are ordered to break the law you quit your job or go to jail if you follow the order - it is that simple

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Dude I am not going to allow for your unprofessional and rude comments.

You are the one who claimed not knowing the law is a reason to lose your law license not me, now I ask you about absurdity of your position and you attack me for using your standard.

You simply want to play games - the courts and now nearly every federal appellate court has found bloggers are reporters - that is the point of the law.

Victor Cortez made it clear to the reporter I was kept out because bloggers are not reporters - he is wrong

Now, unlike you I will rely on the courts to decide this and not some coward posting anonymously

Here is a part of my appellate record

This is a freedom of speech case

This is the case wherein I went after the chief pro bono attorney representing the State Bar before the US Supreme Court - their choice was to shut me down or allow their attorney be called in the trial

This one contains two of my wins because it references another win in the same case - a 3rd mandamus.

Off hand these are the ones I can find on line

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Law is not one idea in a big bucket and you seem to fail to understand this.

This issue is, can he say bloggers not allowed because we are not reporters - every federal appellate court to address the issue has now said bloggers are reporters with the same rights as the reporters.

A press conference on the indictment of a public official is significant. The use of an armed guard to keep me out really hurt his defense. If you think that does not have a chilling effect you are dead wrong.

When Saenz being the insure vindictive person he is order Melissa Zamora to take me off the press release list - he was within his rights - petty and speaks to his vindictiveness, but within his rights.

When he chose to leak information to Valley Central concerning the 8 Liners so they could be their first - again within his rights.

He is within his rights to say to his office - no one speak to Wightman except through official open records requests

But when he calls a public meeting and says bloggers are not reporters and do not have the same rights - he is wrong - that is the difference. He may have actually gotten away with it had he allowed all the bloggers in except me and done it without an armed guard to chill our response.

The problem is he manner in which he did it - saying bloggers are not reporters and using an armed guard.

Yes, he clearly has a lot of leeway to be vindictive and make a fool of himself in front of the community and then the community can vote against him

What he cannot do is claim bloggers are not reporters and then ban us as non reporters when the courts have found we have the same rights. He cannot use an armed guard to intimidate us

But he can certainly at the press conference refuse to recognize us or answer our questions

bobby WC