Monday, May 25, 2015



This morning in a state of panic, Luis Saenz went to court and spoke with Ed Cyganiewicz and Louis Sorola.  If Luis Saenz was conflicted out of this case as the defendant's former attorney, what was he doing in court directing Ed Cyganiewicz and Louis Sorola.  The family will report Saenz's conduct to the FBI this morning.  All Luis Saenz did was prove to everyone Ed Cyganiewicz was not in fact an independent Special Prosecutor but in fact doing Saenz bidding.  Ed knew Saenz was conflicted out, but he continued to listen to Saenz. 

Ben Euresti was all too willing to join in.  He was free to reject the plea bargain.  Apparently, killing someone now merits probation if you are in Ben Euresti's court.  See below for description of the accident.


The victim in this story never recovered from the injuries she suffered after being hit by the defendant.  The doctors recommended her life support be pulled.  She died.  Her name was Maria Fidela Garza - click for original Herald article on accident. for his own interests Armando Villalobos dismissed the death of  Hermila Hernandez, and let Amit Livingston walk. 

Tomorrow for Saenz's own purposes Sandra Blanco will walk unless this post forces Judge Euresti to put a stop to it.   This is Amit Livingston all over again.  And by the way, Saenz has failed at bringing Amit Livingston to justice in the U.S.  The Indian government has yet to extradite Amit Livingston.   We are approaching 6 months since an Indian judge recommended Amit Livingston's extradition.  He remains in India.

A side to this story goes back to Villalobos and Marchan [killed himself before reporting to federal prison for corruption related to Villalobos.]  It also as a bit of a smell of Amit Livingston

A review of the online docket sheet shows Judge Ben Euresti has repeatedly refused to play along.  My only issue with him to date is setting a $10,000 bond per case for a defendant who was on the run for some 15 years.  This wreaks of bad judgment and or corruption.

After someone has been on the run for some 15 years, a $10,000 bond does not guarantee they will return for trial, especially when they are facing first degree felony charges.

The docket sheet shows Sandra de la Luz Blanco hired Luis Saenz has her attorney.  After her arrest and arraignment after indictment she was bonded out.  This is key.  Under Texas law and in fact federal law limitations is tolled when the defendant skips out, after being formally charged.

After multiple attempts to have the case dismissed failed, the case went dormant.  The docket sheet simply says "Order for State to Show Cause."  The first was filed in 2004.  The defendant's bond was pulled in 1999, for failure to appear.  It is not clear why the Order for State to Show Cause was filed.  I will learn that in the morning.

It could be failure to prosecute or limitations which would be bogus because you cannot skip out and then claim the state is failing to prosecute you.  Further, limitations it tolled when you skip out.


This is where it gets interesting.  In March of 2013, shortly after Saenz took office, Peter Gilman filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges against Saenz's client.  There is no record of Saenz ever withdrawing as Sandra Blanco's counsel, and no order of appointment of a new counsel.

02/20/2013  Motion
State's Motion To Dismiss

A family spokesperson told me the following: Peter Gilman "I was given an order by Luis Saenz to clean house and this is one of the cases Luis Saenz asked me to dismiss." The spokesperson claims a witness will verify the statement.

Judge Euresti made the following notation on the controversy of Saenz asking that a case against one of his clients be dismissed.

03/13/2013  Journal Entry
State filed Amended Motion to Appoint Attorney- Pro-Tem. (The state acknowledges that a Motion to Dismiss was filed by one of this office's Asst. D.A. before the conflict herein was brought to the ADA attention; however no order of dismissal has yet been signed by this Court. Because this case remains pending, the State asserts that appointment of an Attorney Pro-Tem is required (due to conflict: specifically, Mr. Luis V. Saenz represented defendant herein, prior to taking office as Cameron County District Attorney).

If you are to believe Peter Gilman, he reviewed the file and determined a first degree felony case wherein the defendant was on the run merited dismissal.  A case wherein the victim died.   During the course of his review of the file and evidence he never once saw any document that the defendant's attorney of record was the current elected District Attorney Luis Saenz?  No one believes this.

Upon learning of the Motion to Dismiss the victim's daughter sent the following letter to Judge Euresti.

"Dear Judge Uresti,

On or about March 4th, 2013 I called the District Attorney’s Office to follow up on reference below cases:                                
99-CR-00000701         Aggravated Assault  
99-CR-00000702         Aggravated Assault & Injury to Child
99-CR-00000703         Aggravated Assault & Injury to Child
During my conversation with a staff employee of the crime victims advocate it was communicated to me that the District Attorney’s office under the direction of Luis Saenz had filed a motion to dismiss cases mentioned under “Prosecutors Discretion”.    At this time Honorable Judge Uresti, I am requesting that the court rule in my favor and deny the motion to dismiss these cases due to the fact that my mom died due to  injuries caused as a result of the accident. Furthermore the defense attorney for the defendant, “Sandra De la Luz Blanco,” in the above mentioned cases was Attorney Luis Saenz who is now the Cameron County District Attorney.  I find this to to be a gross  conflict of interest.  
On March the 8th, 2013,  I met with  Assistant District Attorney Pete Gilman trying to convince him not to dismiss the cases.  The meeting was fruitless and ADA Gilman advised me that there was nothing I could do as you (Judge Uresti) had already dismissed the cases and it would not be assigned to a special prosecutor.  I explained to Mr. Gilman that I had informed your office about the conflict of interest and that I was given a verbal agreement that your court would hold on to the signing of the motion until the outcome of my meeting with the District Attorney’s office.  ADA Gillman said it was too late as you had already signed motion and that this woman would no longer be in the warrant system.
I immediately went over to your court to question your court had signed  the motion to dismiss without my knowledge and was deeply shaken thinking how your court could have done something like this when I was given a verbal agreement that the court would wait.  Once again, I was not given an honest response by Mr. Gillman when he stated that you had already signed motion to dismiss. 
I have since then contacted the FBI and filed an investigation.  The public of this community and the nation must find out what is happening and how the “Victims” of Cameron County are now  being further  “victimized” by our own District Attorney’s office.  "
The family spokesperson told me that the reason Peter Gilman gave for seeking the dismissal of the case was limitations.   This is not possible because limitations is tolled when the defendant is on the run after a failure to appear.  If the family spokesperson is to be believed, this is twice Peter Gilman lied.
During this same time frame in 2013, the family spokesperson received a text message from Beatrice Salazar, Victims' Assistance Coordinator with Saenz's office, stating "she better be careful in making these claims because they could file charges for slander. " No such crime exists. 
The case was set for trial Tuesday the 26th.  The docket sheet and the courts on line docket show the case remains set for trial on the 26th. 
After Judge Euresti was made aware of the conflict with Luis Saenz office filing the motion to dismiss in 2013,  a Special Prosecutor was appointed. Ed Cyganiewicz.  Technically he was not appointed until July 22, 2014, after the defendant was finally arrested on July 18, 2014, after 15 years of being on the run. 
My question to Ed is, why have you not indicted this defendant for failure to appear which carries a sentence of 2-10 years? 
The family spokesperson is telling me that she was called to appear on Tuesday to give a victim's impact statement because a plea bargain had been reached.  [Technically the spokesperson says the term plea bargain was not used, but what she was told is in substance a plea agreement.]  The family was not consulted.  She states that she was told the court had already accepted the plea bargain.  No such entry exists on the docket sheet.
The family spokesperson is concerned based on what she was told the defendant will walk.  Even if the evidence is now iffy after years of the defendant being on the run, based on the failure to appear a jury could easily give her the 10 years, which is a lot more than probation.  But it should shock no one who knows Ed Cyganiewicz he has not brought the felony charge.
What does it say about Judge Ben Euresti and this case that after the woman was on the run for 15 years he sets her bond at $10,000 per case?
This woman successfully ran once for 15 years.  If she believes she can be prosecuted on the original first degree felony charges why stick around?  She knows a deal was cut.  Louis Sorola is her attorney.  See Hector Negrete case above.
When the FBI looks anew at this case and the Hector Negrete case also involving bogus attempts to dismiss after the defendant's original attorney withdrew and Louis Sorola was appointed out of order, the pattern and practice of abuse will be obvious to the FBI.
We shall see what the FBI does with the allegations from the family spokesperson concerning the claim of prosecution for slander if she persisted in her claims.
After her original FBI complaint they called her and indicated DA Saenz  agreed to a special prosecutor, and the case would not be dismissed.   The FBI will now reopen the case especially in light of the Hector Negrete case.
The only unanswered question at this time is, will Judge Ben Euresti leave no doubt in the mind of the FBI he is party to this by allowing for fraud on the court or a bogus plea bargain especially when the defendant in a jury trial could easily get 10 years for failure to appear.
If it is lost on Judge Euresti that no Failure to Appear felony charges have been filed, he should resign as a judge.  If he cannot see this con job, he should resign from the bench.

UPDATE:  Bail jumping has a limitations of 3 years.  There are several appellate decisions on the issue of tolling limitations while the person is on the run.  The three years would start once apprehended, or at the time they  flee.  Different court of appeals see the tolling issue differently, and the two cases which may apply were never resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals.  In a case like this, you go for the indictment and wait to see what the Court of Criminal Appeal does.  In the lead tolling case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals conceded it was taking a different approach than other high courts in the country.  In my original post I said generally for tolling, it starts after indictment, not before.  Elsewhere in the US it starts from the commission of the crime.   So, what we have are conflicting rulings, with no insight from the Court of Criminal Appeals [Texas's Supreme Court for Criminal Cases].  In a case like this with conflicting rulings you go with the indictment and hope the Court of Criminal Appeals takes the case to resolve the confusion.

No comments: