Tuesday, March 10, 2015


Concerning the decision by the State Bar to open an investigation against one of the Chief felony prosecutors within DA Saenz's office a troll posted the following, in part.  The comment has been rejected for what it is, a distraction replete with lies.

"Only random people no one has ever heard of...  "  According to this person I protect my friends and only post comments on people no one has ever heard of.  Gus Garza is known world wide as the spanking judge.  In fact the commission on judicial conduct issued a public reprimand against Gus Garza - but according to this troll - Gus Garza is a no body.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct agreed with Sossi and the family.

The commission met in February and recently released its findings to the public.  They read in part:
“…the Commission concludes Judge Garza exceeded his authority by providing parents and the school district with a ‘safe haven’ for the administration of corporal punishment... with no legal authority to impose the sanction either by the Texas Education Code or Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The findings go on to say: “…this court-sanctioned paddling, which subjected the students and their parents to public embarrassment, humiliation, fear and pain, failed to maintain proper order and decorum in the courtroom as required by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Valley Central

The anger is they want me to post a story that former JP Erin Garcia was issued a private sanction.  Evidence - none - so Juanito who is paid on a regular basis by Alex Begum and Luis Sorola to trash Erin Garcia posts a letter address to we do not know [the name was redacted - Luis Sorola is a castrated eunuch.  He is not educated enough to know the rules so he pays Juanito to delete his name from the letter.]

So what evidence do we have - a letter addressed to some unknown person claiming some unknown judge was issued a private sanction - for what? - we do not know - we do not even know the reason for the alleged sanction against this unknown judge filed by an unknown person.  Yes, Juanito Watergate journalism at its best.  Now if Luis Sorola were not a castrated eunuch a more verified story could have been posted.

I have no evidence any such sanction issued and the basis of the alleged sanction. The BV is not paid by anyone to trash anyone - this is why Juanito has not one document to prove anything he has to say - the main reason is Luis Sorola knows so little about the law he sits in his office as a castrated eunuch in fear of even admitting the letter is addressed to him.


Juanito wants you to believe the sanction was for illegally issuing marriage license waivers.  I am not saying none of this happened - I just have no proof - but lets look at the issue.  No judge, including a JP has legal authority to ignore the terms on the marriage license.  Judges in Alabama are facing contempt by a federal judge for trying to ignore the law.

The marriage license in issue expressly says any judge can sign the 72 hour waiver.
Section 3 C clearly says any judge of a court can sign the waiver.  There is no doubt in my mind that if there is a sanction on this issue, the appellate panel will void it.  In fact I believe the Commission on its own will withdraw the sanction before trying to defend it before a panel of appellate judges.
In the case of now federal judge David Godbey when issuing a mandamus against him as a state district court judge, the Texas Supreme Court went out of its way after finding he ignored the law, that his analysis was nonetheless thoughtful.  No appellate judge will ever holdup a sanction related to the waiver of marriage licenses when the license itself says - any judge can sign the waiver.
"The district court's analysis of the issues was thorough and thoughtful. Nevertheless, we cannot defer to a lower court's judgment on matters of law. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. For the reasons given, we conclude that Baker & Botts must be disqualified in the pending action. We are confident that the district court will promptly comply with our opinion. Our writ of mandamus will issue only if that confidence proves misplaced."
Texas law is clear to everyone except the criminal enterprise known as the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  You cannot sanction a judge for a ruling unless the evidence is clear, it was a willful act of ignoring the law.  How can it be willful when the license itself authorizes JP's to issue the 72 hour waiver?  Again, I am 100% certain if an appeal is taken the Commission will abandon the sanction rather than defend the indefensible.
The Commission has a policy of ignoring the most egregious violations by district court and appellate judges, unless the story goes public.  They intentionally target JP's and municipal judges so they can justify their existence.  We are way past the time for the State Legislature to abolish the commission on judicial conduct and replace it with new people who will take serious their duties.
Further, pending before the Texas Supreme Court is a mandamus wherein a stay has issued wherein a factual part of the case is a district court issuing a 72 hour waiver to a gay couple.  The 72 hour waiver is not an issue, but the Court in its final opinion could discuss how the 72 hour waiver works.
"A court would likely conclude that a justice of the peace is not a 'judge of a court with jurisdiction in family law cases" for purposes of subsection 2.204( c) of the Family Code and thus may not grant a
waiver of the 72-hour waiting period after the issuance of a marriage license."

Click for AG Opinion

Given the fact the marriage license itself says any judge can sign the waiver, and the AG opinion at best is an admission of speculation as to what a court might do, no appellate panel will find under these facts, Erin Garcia willfully violated the law.  They are not going to open the door to every judge being sanctioned when the Commission on no case law finds a judge has violated the law.  It is just not going to happen.
So troll, are you happy I now covered the story with documents and facts, as opposed to 100% speculation without an ounce of proof - such as Juanito?

No comments: