Saturday, January 25, 2014


Saenz can play this game all he wants and with every attempt to obfuscate the central issue, the BV will report the story.  Victor Cortez needs to resign from the DA's office clearly stating he will not be party to Saenz's conduct.  This is the only way he can restore his reputation.  Victor Cortez has all the power - the ball is in his court.

Saenz has his trained Gestapo officers on the Internet trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming the Richmond case only applies to criminal trials.  False - the legal principle of access was clearly stated in the opinion, which has nothing to do with the background facts of the case.

""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"
Just this week the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Supreme Court decision that reporters are not imbued with any special privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

"But every other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. See, e.g., Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)"

As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes
far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352."
See opinion

I was blocked from the press conference for one reason and one reason only - the BV has been unrelenting in covering the corruption at the DA's office.  I have humiliated Saenz in beating him before the AG, reporting the Pedrazo case was without merit - which it was and proven as so when Justice Chew dismissed the case, I have exposed case after case wherein his victims unit is violating the rights of the victims, I have exposed the Josefina Fisher case which has resulted in formal criminal charges against Saenz, I researched and exposed the perjury used by Saenz in the Raul Salazar case which is causing him problems. 

Vindictive Saenz being who he is, retaliated.  All of these posts along with a plethora of case law is going before a federal judge for injunctive relief.  My only hesitancy is  it is bad form to seek any type civil relief while pursuing criminal charges.  To my advantage is I am not seeking monetary damages.

To a news station I was told they agree it was retaliation for my coverage.  So Saenz and his gestapo monkey Victor Cortez can play all they want with the constitution, but in the end they will lose.  What is sad is Cortez has decided to go down with the ship rather than stand up and defend the constitution. 

In law there are good cases and bad cases.  What will make my case exceptional is not that I was just a reporter/blogger blocked from the press conference, but a reporter/blogger who has repeatedly reported on the corruption and incompetence with Saenz office.  This simple fact raises significant First Amendment issues.


Anonymous said...

"I have exposed the Josefina Fisher case which has resulted in formal criminal charges against Saenz"
I have been out of touch for a while. What charges have been brought against Saenz and in what jurisdiction? In what court are the charges pending?

BobbyWC said...

Josefina Fisher has filed charges against Saenz under 18 USC 242 and any other statutes which may apply. The claim is he is prosecuting as a form of official oppression for calling Yolanda Begum a fake.

The statement has two readings - which is a problem with the English language - in other languages it would be a lot clearer.

By file the statement means she has met with the DOJ and FBI and filed charges. It can take up to 3 years to process unless they are already working on other charges such as the bribe charge levied by Justin Ramos against Saenz.

I expect she will be asking for an attorney pro tem to prosecute Saenz under the state official oppression statute also.

It would be political suicide for any state district court judge to deny the Motion or to Recuse themselves - usually the attorney appointed will be an elected DA from another county. No local attorney would dare prosecute Saenz and he judges know it

Under the Civil Rights Statute the complaint is delivered to the DOJ in Houston and FBI in San Antonio for prosecution in the Brownsville Division of the federal courts

Bobby WC