Wednesday, September 17, 2014


LUCI LONGORIA THUMBS NOSE AT CRIMINAL VIOLATION

Given the fact I have never lost a Texas Ethics Commission complaint on its merits, you would think Montoya and Luci would know better than to accuse me of filing a frivolous complaint while attacking me for filing the complaint.  Because Luci goes to Montoya for legal advice she fails to realize her attack  and refusal to comply with the code becomes evidence of her willful intent to engage in criminal conduct.  The TEC has taken note of her actions.  How they will respond I do not know.

There is also the little matter that the TEC has found misstating a complaint or using it in political advertising is in and of itself disfavored and can be considered in resolution of the complaint.

TEC NOTIFIES LUCI LONGORIA OF COMPLAINT

Because she is a complete idiot she failed to understand the main purpose behind the TEC notifying her of my complaint in advance of qualifying it as a complaint.  She was notified on Friday via email of my complaint.  The notification included a copy of the complaint.  So she knows the TEC order I relied on before filing my complaint.  With actual knowledge of the TEC order I relied on she still went to Montoya for an attack piece which only served to inform the TEC of her intent to continue to engage in criminal conduct.

LUCI LONGORIA CHANGED POSITIONS

No one disputes that Luci Longoria changed positions from Place 4 to Place 1.  Let's begin with TEC Rule 26.7


§ 26.7. Use of the Term "Reelect" in Political Advertising

"A person or candidate may, in the event of redistricting, use the term "reelect" in a campaign for elective office only if the candidate is the elected incumbent of an office that represented any part of the new or renumbered district prior to the redistricting
 
This is the only time a candidate can use the term reelect if they are now running in a different district or Position.  So for example if BISD Trustee positions were by district and redistricting moved Luci from Position 4 to Position 1 she would still be allowed to use the word "Reelect."  But this is not her case.
 
LUCI'S PAID FOR DIATRIBE OF DISTRACTION
 
From Montoya
 
"He has already complained to the Texas Ethics Commission that Longoria is deceiving the fine people of the BISD by announcing on her campaign signs that she is running for reelection. You see, the fine rapier-like legal mind of his figures that since Lucy is not running for the same seat on the board, she cannot be running for reelection to her old seat.."
 
"Let's see. Longoria is currently a trustee on the BISD board. She is running for reelection to the board, except for a different seat. But she is not running for a seat on the San Benito school district, or Los Fresnos, or even Mercedes. She is running for reelection to the same board on which she is now a trustee. The fact that she is not running for the same seat doesn't change that."
 
LET'S SEE IF THE TEC AGREES WITH THE GREAT LEGAL MINDS OF MONTOYA AND LONGORIA
 
What is bizarre is Luci was informed on Friday that my complaint is based in part on TEC Order SC-280299.  Well let's see what its says.
 
The case of Albert Edwards:

 
"Although the signs and mailers included the word “for” before the office sought in some
instances, they also used the word “re-elect” in such a way as to represent that the respondent
held the office of state representative of District 146 at a time when he did not hold that
office. "

Contrary to her sign, Luci Longoria does not hold the Position 1 office at this time so she cannot be reelected to Position 1.
 
Now, I will agree that the TEC does dismiss complaints based on failure to provide an E-Mail, failure to provide a clear picture of your driver's license.  But in those cases you can refile with the corrections.
 
My complaint does have a flaw - I referenced TEC § 255.005, when I should have said .006.  I am not amending it because I also referenced TEC Order 280299, which is on point and deals with 255.006.
 
TEC Rule 12.59 deals with this the defect in my favor
 
§ 12.59. Description of Violation
 
(a) If a complaint does not include the specific rule or provision of law alleged to have been violated, the complaint must clearly and concisely describe facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of a law administered and enforced by the commission.
 
(b) A complaint that erroneously cites a specific rule or provision of law is nonetheless sufficient if the correct citation can reasonably be ascertained by the commission. When a complaint erroneously cites a specific rule or provision of law, the commission shall cite the correct rule or provision of law in the notice provided to the respondent.
 
What could have been a simple ethics investigation has now gone to a willful intent to violate a criminal statute.  The conduct alleged is a Class A Misdemeanor.
 
Sec. 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.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person represents that a candidate holds a public office that the candidate does not hold if:
(1) the candidate does not hold the office that the candidate seeks; and
(2) the political advertising or campaign communication states the public office sought but does not include the word "for" in a type size that is at least one-half the type size used for the name of the office to clarify that the candidate does not hold that office.
(d) A person other than an officeholder commits an offense if the person knowingly uses a representation of the state seal in political advertising.
 
(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
 
No matter what the great legal mind of Montoya claims, Luci Longoria does not currently hold the office of Position 1 - it is really that simple.
 
But you know what, the TEC could decide they are tired of theses cases and change their mind on how they seek to resolve them.  It is always pretty much anyone's guess how the TEC will deal with a complaint, which is why I always rely on a previous order instead of just the rule. But if they move forward the more defiant Luci is [hey Montoya pay attention to how your client spells her name] the worse the sanction could be which could include being referred for criminal prosecution. There is no dispute - her conduct is willful.
 
The TEC can refer the matter to DA Saenz - we all know how that will go - nowhere and Luci knows it.  But for his contempt for our laws and support for election fraud Saenz could charge her now.  She cannot claim ignorance because after learning of the violation she continued her conduct and in fact made clear she would not be moved by the law.
 
Finally, given the plain language of the law and the referenced TEC order Cesar Lopez would be fine in taking out ads stating the violation and Luci Longoria's continued willful violation of a criminal code sanction.  He can also gone on to say rather than correct her violation of the law she openly and publicly attacked the community activist who filed the complaint.
 
YOU WATCH - knowing it is a crime the Herald will accept her ads with the word "Reelect."  How sad the Herald has become.
 
 I FORGOT:  LUCI VS. BISD - MONTOYA WILL MISLEAD
 
The original lawsuit filed by Frank Perez for Luci against BISD was defective.  So after BISD filed its Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit, Frank Perez ran to court with a new filing with corrections.  BISD then filed a new Motion to Dismiss based on the amended lawsuit.
 
The courts must report the number of pending Motions it has,  This causes the judges to review files for Motions which can be disposed of with little effort.
 
It is true - Judge Hanen denied BISD's Motion to Dismiss - but he did it as moot,  It was done only for statistical purposes.  The second Motion to Dismiss based on the amended lawsuit remains pending.  Once Frank Perez filed the amended lawsuit, BISD's Motion to Dismiss became moot, thereby causing them to have to file a new one based on the amended lawsuit.  So nothing of substance has changed, except Frank Perez filing an amended lawsuit to address the defects he had in his original filing.

28 comments:

BobbyWC said...

I see you Juanito

Entry Page Time:17 Sep 2014 10:23:10Visit Length:26 mins 34 secsBrowser:IE 8.0OS:Win7Resolution:1280x768 United States Flag Total Visits:5Location:Brownsville, Texas, United StatesIP Address:Brownsville Public Library System (216.194.176.129) [Label IP Address]Search Referral:

www.google.com — alejandro dominguez brownsville #33Entry Page:

brownsvillevoice.blogspot.com/2012/03/escobedo-brothers-on-run-story-at-noon.htmlExit Page:

brownsvillevoice.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

I'm underwhelmed. You said "nuclear" and "criminal investigation against Carl Montoya". Oh well, serves me right for getting my hopes up. If Saenz does anything with that Class "A", it'll be to bump it down to a "C". We all know Luci and Ben Neece are buds. I hear dismissal.

BobbyWC said...

There is no lessor included offense to reduce it to a class C and even if there were, Saenz would not do it.

On Carl Montoya go back and read my post and then rethink your post

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

I think it is time we all accept that laws are nothing more than political weapons used by DA's to silence those they oppose or did not support them.

The TEC almost never ever enforces criminal statutes. The decision to prosecute Tom Delay was 100% political - he was not the first to do what he did and will not be the last. But he was targeted for politics.

This in my view is a clear obstruction of justice.

I have something more on this tomorrow.

Things are not getting better because the FBI and DOJ are key players in the entire mess concerning enforcement of criminal statutes.

It is at the point of being dangerous. To make matters worse we have a press too chicken shit to report what is happening at a national level

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

here is what is going to happen - Luci will not change her signs or ads. The worse case scenario is she gets hit with a $1,000 fine after the election. There will be a fundraiser to pay the fine which means she pays nothing.

Cesar Lopez being who he is will not even make an issue of it.

The TEC such as our DA could go away tomorrow and nothing would change for the worse - they may get better - they certainly will not get worse.

Given the lack of will to enforce the law by the DA and TEC, it is fair to say both are a complete and total waste of taxpayer money.

There is a reason why corruption rules our country - there is no one to enforce the laws against politicians unless the reason is political

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Why did luci leave out Otis powers from her ad in today's paper. He also voted to quiet Caty. Why is luci protecting Otis?

Is she seriously trying to justify why she wants 1 million dollars from BISD. Notice when luci speaks at board meetings she attacks administrators and throws others under the bus. Does she forget that she was a BISD secretary who use to get upset when sitting board members gave her boss a hard time?

BobbyWC said...

I just saw the ad. I have no idea . What is interesting to me is she did the ad on a low cost day and felt a need to explain herself

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight, you have a former BISD "secretary" now running the school system? Only in Brownsville.

Anonymous said...

Both Lucy and Cata have a history of bankruptcy. Both led the charge to settle with their ex boss Gonzales and friends Juarez and Rendon. They feel entitled to their cut of BISD so they sue.

Anonymous said...

No you have two former BISD secretaries trying to run the disrict.

Anonymous said...

Who is supporting Bowman's campaign?

Anonymous said...

There you have it.....her laughable explanation of WHY she wants a millon dollars.

Anonymous said...

From Nov, 2010 to Dec 2011, Presas- Garcia did EXACTLY the same thing to Aguilar, Colunga, and Pena. Should they file a million dollars each because Presas-Garcia silenced them??? Think about it....

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit Caty and Luci gave against the district beyond me. How can you take an oath to protect the children, then turn around and sue them???? HELLOOOO! !

Anonymous said...

Catalina and Lucy are a cancer to the school district. There should be a law that if trustees sue the district they represent, that they should step down. This is a complete conflict of interest! These women have no shame, trying to profit from funds that taxpayers pay, for the children. Disgusting!

Anonymous said...

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_23515710/clint-isd-trustees-invite-district-petitions

BobbyWC said...

The districts should be based on the clusters. This way parents have a Trustee they know is responsible to that cluster of schools and the students

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I also believe each place should represent a geographic area. When I arrived in Brownsville 20 years ago all board members save one had their children in private schools and most lived within a stones throw of each other. There was no parity in represenation. The private school people have fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately, the makeup of the board continues with self serving, narcissitic, individuals more intested in hearing their stupid dribble and sueing each other than addressing real school issues. Any suggestions on how to change the district to single member as opposed to at large? Maybe the elitest mentality will stop.

Anonymous said...

Single member places will stop the place shopping as practiced by Cata and Lucy in their quest to gain advantage at all costs.

Anonymous said...

Petition the Trustees

Anonymous said...

"The districts should be based on the clusters. This way parents have a Trustee they know is responsible to that cluster of schools and the students,"

To have proper representation based on the cluster, would the board of trustee be required to live within the boundaries of the cluster? If I live in a specific cluster, I want my representative for that cluster to live within the boundaries of my cluster. Otherwise, it is like having a member of the board of trustees who has his child in a private or a charter school making decisions for my child. Of course the argument will always be that as long as the board member is a district's taxpayer that he has the right to seek a position on the board of trustees.

BobbyWC said...

we have specific districts on the city commission - why not school districts.

Yes, I would want the trustee to live within the cluster.

Of course during the first elections existing trustees would have to be allowed to run outside their cluster - otherwise they would never approve of the change - the presumption is voters would prefer someone who lives within the cluster and the problem in short order would resolve itself

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Several problems exist with the concept of the clusters for representation. Gerrymandering is a major problem. Clusters are not equally populated within the district. Students often do not attend the cluster school within the boundaries of their cluster. There are clusters that share middle schools with other clusters. Alternative schools and career pathways do not exist in all of the clusters. Those are only a few of the problems if the concept of clusters for representation was to take place.

Anonymous said...

The idea for Single member districts for School board members is essentially a way to make the Board more accountable. Single member districting is much like the nationalist movement to separate Scotland that was recently voted down.

The better way to hold people accountable is to vote them out if they get out of line.

Anonymous said...

Agree!!

Anonymous said...

They both should be in jail !!

Anonymous said...

Well...should they???

Anonymous said...

Because it is not about the students, it is about self enrichment