Monday, May 18, 2015

I could have done a story on Friday, using Texas law to show the following statement to be highly suspect.  You see there are two questionable parts to the statement.  1) if you have an employer, your child support is automatically garnished so there is no issue of having to have the money by a date certain because they are just going to take it out of your paycheck.  Further, there is no issue of there being enough in the paycheck to cover the child support, because it is automatically set at 20% of your subject income, for one child.  2) BISD employees get paid on the 25th.  But I did not run with what appeared to be an obviously false statement because we are in Cameron county and I cannot rely on the judges to follow the law.  Hence I had to wait until this morning when I could review the actual court order.
Well the key part of the court order, substantiates the following statement:
From the witness:
"Well, as I said before he did receive a $2,000+ donation at La Rancherita restaurant, but I can't recall who did and he did say God Blessed him bcuz he was short on child support funds and now he had it covered by those supporters. Slip of tongue on his behalf is what I call accidentally."

"How much is his child support?I want to say around $1,100 but he gives to ex on payday 25th and on 15th."

As you can understand given the fact Texas garnishes child support from your paycheck, it makes no sense Rick would pay his ex wife directly.  But like I said this is Cameron County, and in fact Rick does pay his wife directly.  I have redacted the name of his ex-wife and the name of the bank wherein he makes the direct deposits.

It should shock no one Judge Sanchez chose to by-pass the standard procedure of garnishment.  Which is why I held until I saw the actual order.

I will post more excerpts. I say the witnesses statement is substantially correct because in fact his child support is $800.00 and the alimony is $200.00 which is why he has two separate payment dates.  Normally a court would simply order his paycheck garnished, and then his ex wife would have access to the money through a debit card previously provided by the AG's office.

The above is found on page 19 of the final order.  It aligns with the dates more or less as provided by the witness and verifies that Rick in fact pays his children support directly to his ex wife.  This makes her story plausible.
See Child support order page 17
See Spousal support order page 18

Both orders align with the dates provided by the witness. I have redacted the name of Rick's ex wife and child.
The report clearly shows $2,000 in donations on April 16, 2015, while the report shows $2,000 in cash donations - getting to $4,000.  Now, I have no way of proving when he received the $2,000 in cash donations.  Not all cash donations require that the name of the donor be reported.  All of the cash could have been donated at the party, or on different days.  But to be fair, while I have no proof, I do not doubt some people give cash and ask that their name not be used.  I am  certain this happens in every campaign.  The problem is there is no way to prove it.  The witness's comments are hearsay.  But the campaign finance report seems to verify Rick Longoria reported the entire $4,000.
My issue with how this story has been covered is with the lack of vetting, I will post all of Rick's campaign finance reports - but this is the one everyone wants to see.
There was no vetting of the claims.  What I have done is authenticate her statement on the child support, while showing the Carlos Marin money was reported.  What I did not do is write a story using the law to put into issue her allegations concerning the child support, because I am document driven and I know we cannot trust Cameron County judges to follow the law.
But this is what the Imp said about the Carlos Marin money.
""Street, and that when he came home later that night, Longoria was happy as a lark, having collected some $4,000 in cash campaign donations. It was a Heaven-sent windfall, as his campaign expenses had mounted and his $1,100 child-support payment again loomed'"
Support for his statement - none - support against his statement - the campaign finance report.  Although I concede we cannot trace the exact date Rick Longoria received the $2,000 in cash donations, but when added to the $2,000 in direct donations we get to the $4,000, the material witness claimed Rick to have received on the 16th.  It is all reported.
"An examination Friday of the last two reports (30 days before the election and eight days before the May 9 election) do not show any of the three individuals listed as contributors."
True enough, but the report does show the $4,000 from the Marin party reported.  Kind of a trivial point to leave out.  Further, no date is given as to when Ayala provided the cash donation - so we do not know where to look for it.  Further given the sum is allegedly $240, it is not a reach to say it was from individuals giving small amounts, which means it would be reported as cash donations. '
I am concerned with the child support issue, because the witness's statement seems supported by the court order. 
I have more - but this is the key - be patient.
You will note $1,468 in donations not required to be itemized which includes cash donations.
You will note $1600 in donations not required to be itemized, which includes cash donations.
You will note $0 in cash donations or donations which do not require itemization.
 You will note $2004.47 in cash donations or donations which do not require itemization.
It is no secret the candidates have chicken plate fundraisers, loteria etc.  These evens bring in cash.  There is no way to trace how much was actually raised.  This is a flaw in Texas law.  But just about every candidate uses some form of fundraising which will bring in large cash donations.  Yes, it invites abuse, but by itself it is evidence of nothing. 
Until Texas finds a way to better regulate this there is no way of anyone proving fraud or the illegal laundering of campaign money.  And as the witness says, she was only eye witness to one event - the alleged Ayala donation.
As to the Marin event, the campaign finance report proves what she says - but it also proves the money was reported.
What all of the above shows is, plenty of cash donations were reported.  There is no way of knowing if all was reported.
But the campaign finance report for April 30, 2015, tends to show the entire $4,000 from the Marin affair was reported.  Again there is no way to trace every cash donation, but in this case the numbers add up to exactly what the witness claimed.
The documents raise circumstantial evidence that the witness's claims are true.  But when compared to the Marin affair, her claims appear to be stretching the truth based on prodding.


If anyone believes a thing either of these turkeys says, you deserve bad government.

When Barton got caught lying when he claimed I withheld an email sent to me from Wayland verifying Roman Perez was a professor, something they denied when I called them on the false email, Barton did nothing to denounce Roman Perez for misleading him and lying.  Or maybe Barton was party to the lie the entire time, well until they found out Wayland told me the truth.

Instead of issuing a proper retraction, making it clear Roman Perez lied to him and submitted a fabricated email allegedly addressed to me, Barton told me to basically eff off because no further apology, clarification or retraction would be forthcoming.

They are both birds of a feather, and only a fool would believe a word said by either.


Why?  She feels she was betrayed.  But in my opinion when Roman Perez, the Imp, and Barton used her for political ends, they betrayed her a second time.  She has suffered enough.  I think she knows taking this drama to these less then men was a mistake.  She needs to be left alone.  Oh, they will not leave her alone.  They will need to defend their conduct and abuse of her sense of betrayal.

The BV will move on from her by not using her name because she seems to understand she made a big mistake in working with Roman Perez, the Imp and Barton.

The BV will certainly accept any real evidence of the laundering of campaign money by any candidate.

The BV held on the child support issue until the order could be reviewed.  It showed Judge Sanchez did not follow standard procedure, which is why it appeared the witness was lying.  But now with the order published my readers can form their own opinion.  Her statement seems to be substantially verified.  The numbers were slightly off, but I consider that meaningless.

The campaign finance report shows the Carlos Marin fundraiser money was reported.  The numbers add up to exactly what the witness claimed, $4,000.

This is how a story is vetted, versus running to write trash because you have a score to settle.


As to my need to view the campaign finance reports which prove the Marin money was reported, and the court order on the child support which tends to substantiate the witness' statement the Imp said.

"His reputation is one of impotent reporting, his "I'm waiting for one more document" style of "Promises, Promises Blogging" not only bores us, but it makes us laugh."

The BV is known for its document driven process.  The Imp hates this because he knows he would never spend a penny of his own money in search of a real document or evidence.

He will take my words out of context and spin a web of deceit, which his 50 readers will laugh at.

The BV will move forward on documents.  My last story on Ben Neece and Juanito took over a month, why?  because I was willing to be patient and wait for documentation instead of just running with the story a source gave me.


BobbyWC said...

Inasmuch as you comment in incoherent and does nothing to help sort this out for either side, I am rejecting it.

You might consider rewriting it while considering the clarification I posted as you were posting your comment.

There is no proof on the Escobedo money. Ziltch - it is hearsay - she admitted to not seeing it.

And to use what may be your reasoning, but I am not sure because it was incoherent - would it not stand to reason if he reported the Marin money he reported all cash donations.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

So, are saying every working parent that is obligated to pay child support pays it through garnishment and that this is the law in Texas? When did this happen because it wasn't that way a few years ago. It seems unlikely to me that you are correct. It would require an order of garnishment every time child support was ordered and that order would probably have to be amended whenever the payer changed jobs. It would also mean that the AG's office would be managing debit cards for every divorce involving children in the state of Texas. In my experience, and it has been a few years since I had to know about this kind of stuff, garnishment happened when someone established a history of not paying what the court ordered. I'm thinking that most of the time when child support is ordered the parent with the obligation to pay sends the payee a check or money order or some other instrument and their employer and the AG's office never hear about it. If they fail to pay then everybody hears about it. I would like to see the document supporting your statements.

BobbyWC said...

I have easily prepared over 200 orders in family law cases. I have never seen a court agree to no withholding unless the person is self employed.

Did it even occur to you to google it before you looked silly.

It's all electronic. JCP sends it electronically to the AG who electronically puts it into the account.

I cannot speak for Cameron county but in Dallas and Ftw, when you submitted the final order you had to include the withholding order for the AG otherwise the judge would not sign.

But since you insist.

Sec. 158.001. INCOME WITHHOLDING; GENERAL RULE. In a proceeding in which periodic payments of child support are ordered, modified, or enforced, the court or the Title IV-D agency shall order that income be withheld from the disposable earnings of the obligor as provided by this chapter.

What is really bizarre about your comment is, it does not matter because Sanchez did not require a withhold order.

It could be because Rick has both an employer income and a self employment income.

But who knows, but the above law is clear. And the AG has an entire army devoted to collecting child support. Their office in Brownsville is overwhelmed.

Next time try googling it before commenting.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Also you know why the judge the money ordered paid into a specific account. That account by agreement of the parties become the evidence for contempt. The mother simply prints out the account and shows the support has not been paid, and she can file for contempt.

You know how the AG files for contempt for the receiving parent -0 they print out the payment history - do you realize how stupid a system it would be if people had to collect old checks or money orders to prove contempt or payment.

Direct payment is no defense in Texas to contempt. In this case because he has been ordered to pay it into a specific account, the account acts as the same evidence the AG would use.

Bobby WC