Tuesday, May 5, 2015


To the reader who asked for the update - sorry I forgot.  Just very busy.  It has been more than a year since BISD filed its second Motion to Dismiss.  The first was denied as moot after Cata and Luci amended their lawsuit.

UPDATE:  Because Joe Rodriguez is so compromised in the ongoing FBI investigations concerning the insurance and now Zabarte, his son's law firm of Colvin, Chaney, Saenz & Rodriguez, L.L.P., , must withdraw as counsel for BISD in this litigation.  Cata certainly could have information which could cause problems for Joe Rodriguez.  This compromises any recommendation by his son's law firm.  It is about appearance - and not any actual compromise.  The FBI needs to closely keep an eye on this.

The good news is based on court filings - we are nearly a year since any have been made.  This means there should be no billing.  We are just waiting on Judge Hanen to issue a ruling.

Joe Rodriguez's son's law firm has shown extreme incompetence in the matter by not citing the only case which matters.  As legislators their speech during Board Meetings belong to the people and not them, so therefore their speech cannot be violated when they are silenced during board meetings because they have none.

[NOTE BELOW - In email from BISD's counsel he uses the word sight not cite - that should tell you about the level of competence BISD is receiving]

The Nevada Commission case is 100% on point and ends the case.  But it has been more than a year and federal judge Hanen cannot seem to follow the law on such a simple and obvious point.  I guess he is waiting for a majority to form which will pay off Luci and Cata, thereby ending his need to do his job and follow the law.

Note we have a problem - Cata may have Joe Rod compromised over the insurance mess and now the Zabarte mess.  What is to prevent Joe Rod's son recommending settlement as a way to protect his father Joe Rod?  Nothing

This is a very real conflict of interest and it is time Joe Rod's son's law firm withdraw as counsel. 

From a previous BV post.

"If my readers remember when BISD hired counsel the request included a specific requirement of being familiar with Legislative Immunity issues.  The BV has noted that Mitchell Chaney of Joe Rodriguez son's law firm never even mentions Legislative Immunity as a basis for dismissal.

Of note to me there is no mention of  Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, which is dispositive

The Supreme Court has been clear - Cata's and Luci's so called speech during Board meetings is not personal to them, but in fact belong to the people - case closed.

"But how can it be that restrictions upon legislators' voting are not restrictions upon legislators' protected speech? The answer is that a legislator's vote is the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature's power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal. The legislative power thus committed is not personal to the legislator but belongs to the people; the legislator has no personal right to it. As we said in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 821 (1997), when denying Article III standing to legislators who claimed that their voting power had been diluted by a statute providing for a line-item veto, the legislator casts his vote "as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power." In this respect, voting by a legislator is different from voting by a citizen. While "a voter's franchise is a personal right," "[t]he procedures for voting in legislative assemblies ... pertain to legislators not as individuals but as political representatives executing the legislative process." Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 469-470 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.)."

There could be no case more on point to the facts here.  Luci and Cata have no First Amendment rights while acting as Trustees.  It is that simple, but yet Michell Chaney does not consider it important to inform the court of this on point SCOTUS case law.

After I informed Michell Chaney of the case law and that it was not in BISD's brief the response was as follows:


We'll see how the court rules. We did sight [sic]several cases that hold the same. Like Garcetti and its progeny.


Mitchell C. Chaney
1201 E. Van Buren
P. O. Box 2155
Brownsville, Texas 78522-2155
Telephone:  956-542-7441
Facsimile:  956-541-2170


Mr. Chaney the word you were looking for is cite -like in citation.  No wonder the case remains pending.  When are you going to do your job Mr. Chaney and inform the court of Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, and the associated case law?  Oh, I will bet never, especially since your law partner's father is up a creek at BISD and Cata may have him over a barrel.


Anonymous said...

" He billed in excess of $23,000 which included use of federal funds,. . . "

Bobby, how do you know that the payment included federal funds? The agenda does not state the funding budget for the payment.

BobbyWC said...

Fair question - BISD receives both state and federal funds. The money all goes into the budget. So long as they receive federal funding they are subject to federal law. It does not have to be shown that the federal money went into account A and the billing was paid from account B. In the end it is part of the same pool of funds to be used by the school district.

Bills paid from taxpayer or state money impacts the federal dollars. The accounting does not distinguish - they have a budget which includes property taxes, state and federal funds. So long as they receive federal funds they cannot play the game of saying well the money was really property tax money - the feds figured out that game a long time ago.

It is just like the federal politiquera case. there was no evidence any one running for federal office benefit from the vote harvesting but because it involved a federal election it gave the feds jurisdiction.

Let's say for arguments sake - which is not really - BISD paid out of an account which only have property tax money in it - to make up for those paid out funds, they would have to look to the federal dollars to fund projects which would have otherwise come from the property tax money which was used to pay Zabarte

Bobby WC

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

go play your games elsewhere - I said appearance - and if you cannot see the appearance problem then you are blind.

As the US Supreme Court just said in the judicial campaign case - the mere appearance of a judge being influenced by a donation is enough of a compelling state interest for the state to bar judges from asking for money.

Sometimes an appearance is worse than an actual conspiracy.

Appearance is the word I used. My exact words "It is about appearance - and not any actual compromise."

So you can try and change what I said all you want, but it will not fly on the BV

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

" The money all goes into the budget."

Your statement needs further research. Their are specific guidelines as to how state and federal funds are to be use by the school district.

BobbyWC said...

I get what you are saying. But because they receive federal funding the feds have jurisdiction. It is really that simple.

There are now at least two fbi agents interviewing bisd staff and others. It will be looked at as evidence of how bisd does business.

Unfortunately we are looking at 2-3 years

Bobby WC