Tuesday, February 3, 2015

 
DA SAENZ'S OFFICE ON VERGE OF COLLAPSE

[FOR FUN - NOT LIKE THE REAL PARK AVENUE IS IT]

For Documents click on highlighted underlined item.

I have said this over and over again - "nothing is ever as it appears."  I am nowhere by chance and everywhere by intent.

Later this morning I will have the complete story.  I need to confirm with a document, what I found in my notes.  I was actually researching something else when I ran into my old notes and realized an interesting fact.  I was somewhere by intent, but failed to follow-up as directed.

THE CAST OF CHARACTERS - LUIS SAENZ, ARTURO NELSON, LOUIS SOROLA, AND HECTOR NEGRETE







 
I have something to do, so for now I will disclose the documented facts while later posting the documents.
 
I believe based on the evidence a reasonable jury could find Judge Arturo Nelson a party to what happened.
 
The facts are clear - some 5 days after Judge Nelson dismissed felony criminal charges against Hector Negrete, Louis Sorola on August 28, 2013, donated some $500 to Luis Saenz.  The date is key.  There was no ongoing political campaign.  For purposes of donations it was basically a dead season.  I need to work on the other donors during this same period.  Too many donations for a non-election period.  I am well on my way to researching all of these lawyers.
 
I was in court when this happened.  I repeat: I have said this over and over again - "nothing is ever as it appears."  I am nowhere by chance and everywhere by intent.
 
I will tell you a criminal investigator has been assigned by the Texas AG's office to investigate Luis Saenz.  These documents along with those related to the Begum alleged bribery case which is pending with the FBI are going to the investigator with the Texas AG's office.
 
An attorney by the name of Leticia Barguiarena was court appointed to represent Hector Negrete in multiple criminal cases.  They involved different victims.  This is part of the key - I am certain Leticia Barguiarena knew the law and this is why she withdrew in case number 2013-DCR-1316.  She was unwilling to be party to a fraud on the court.
 
"This Court has recognized the protection against double jeopardy is inapplicable where separate and distinct offenses occur during the same transaction. Spradling, supra; Jones v. State, 514 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.Crim.App.1974)"
 
Key here is the cases each had different victims.  Double jeopardy does not attach when one crime spree involves more than one victim. Also double jeopardy does not apply if at least one element in one crime is different from a different crime.  But really the key here is different victims.
 
When I was in court, Louis Sorola and Guz Garza agreed the state had agreed to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy.    The case number is 2013-DCR-1316.
 
For cause the order of dismissal says the "defendant was convicted in another case."  13-CCR-3019.
 
The 3019 case is a misdemeanor case not a felony which requires a different level of damages.  It also involved a completely different victim - hence no double jeopardy.
 
Leticia Barguiarena knew this because she negotiated the plea in the 1319, case.  This is why she withdrew.  She knew there was no legal basis to ask for dismissal based on double jeopardy. Four days after she withdrew, Judge Nelson appointed Louis Sorola out of order.  This means, Sorola was not next on the list, but Judge Nelson appointed him anyway.  This can only be done "unless the court makes a finding of good cause on the record for appointing an attorney out of order."  There is no such finding in the order other than a perfunctory statement good cause was found - what that good cause is, is not noted.
 
Judge Nelson could not chance that the next attorney on the list would refuse to pursue the motion to dismiss as without merit, so he had to appoint Louis Sorola out of order.
 
Now think about this, who better to go before Judge Nelson on August 23, 2013, than the attorney who negotiated the plea in the case which forms the basis of the double jeopardy claim?  Leticia Barguiarena, to her credit would not corrupt the process, and withdrew.
 
OH IT GETS BETTER:
 
Judge Nelson did not require one ounce of proof that the defendant had been convicted in another case, and signed the order of dismissal in the 1316 case. 
 
Here is the real kicker.  - on September 13, 2013, in another case 3018, ADA Joe Arreola asked that the charges be dismissed because the defendant had been convicted in the 1316 case.  Which by the way is the case which was dismissed based on the conviction in the 1319 case, which is also a completely different victim.
 
Upon reporting this fraud to the court, I was told Judge Betancourt refused to sign the Order of Dismissal because the defendant had already plead in the case in June 2013. 
 
 
THE QUESTION IS - WHY DID LETICIA BARGUIARENA FEEL A NEED TO WITHDRAW JUST DAYS BEFORE THE COURT HEARD THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND JUDGE NELSON FELT A NEED TO APPOINT LOUIS SOROLA OUT OF ORDER FOR A SIMPLE DISMISSAL?
 
She knew Guz Garza's motion was without merit and could not defend her client based on a lie to the court - so she withdrew.
 
It was one big fraud on the court.
 
The only possible explanation I can find for such an outright contempt for the law is an Adriana Negrete donated money to Saenz and also worked on his campaign.  Was it a favor?
 
The fact they have the same last name does not mean they are related.  But guys, there are not a lot of Negretes in Brownsville.  This is the only possible link I can find to explain this case.
 
More tomorrow on more bad cases.
 
Also, why the fraud for a no body drunk punk?
 
NOW WATCH
 
Sorola will cut a check and Juanito will all of a sudden come back to the defense of Luis Saenz.
 
 It will be after dinner before I can upload the documents.
 
Well the documents are loaded.  The actual criminal complaints are not published because I see no reason to bring the victims into this.
 
This is how Juanito will play it - "the blah blah blah blah Wightman now says anyone who makes a donation to Luis Saenz is bribing him."  Nope - never said such a thing.  What I said is, the court appointed attorney saw a need to withdraw from the case and Arturo Nelson saw a need to appoint out of order Louis Sorola.  Gus Garza and Louis Sorola then lied to the court that double jeopardy mandated dismissal even though we were dealing with two different victims and crimes.  Judge Nelson required no proof of the double jeopardy.   Then 5 days later Louis Sorola made a $500 contribution to Saenz.
 
I sat through the Villalobos trial.  This is exactly how the DOJ laid out the evidence for each bribe involving Villalobos.
 

No comments: