Thursday, June 11, 2015

Pat Ahumada who ordered the cameras turned off during public comment now seeks to stop the Free Speech of citizens who support Tony Martinez.  When will this buffoon and those who continue to support him ever learn?
"Interim Elections Administrator Remi Garza said after reviewing the state statutes and contacting the office of the Texas Secretary of State, based on the information provided in the complaint by Ahumada, it has been determined that there were no violations of the Texas Elections code.
This is what the BV said last night on Ahumada's latest attention getting stunt.  Why did he not go to Remi Garza first?  He knew there was no basis to his complaint - so he ran to the blogs and news media first.  Hopefully the TV press will make a big deal his complaint was completely bogus.  I am so tired of these stunts.  Take your complaint to the Elections Administrator first, see what he says, and then if need be go to the press.
" Winfield testified that he understood the oath to apply only on election day while he was working in his official capacity as an election judge. He admits soliciting votes for Espinoza, but said he did not do this while serving as election judge.
We cannot agree that Winfield was muzzled twenty-four hours a day from the time he first took the oath on March 10, the day of the primary election, through April 14, the day of the primary runoff election. Section 62.003 requires the oath to be taken at the polling place before the polls open; clerks who arrive after the oath is taken must take the oath before performing duties as an election officer."

Click for Alvarez v. Espinosa at 249
With any luck the TV news media will still run the story reporting there was no merit to Pat Ahumada's complaint,  It will only serve to remind people who he really is.

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

You know what, I have a choice I can go with the case law and the statement by Remi Garza or a vulgar low information anony poster

I will go with Remi's statement to the Herald and the case law thank you very much.

You can continue to rely on your vulgarities

And not that truth or reality matters to you - but I went out of my way to say the clerk showed incredibly poor judgment, albeit her conduct was legal. I made it clear her conduct showed an appearance problem. I did not let her off the hook.

The same problem happened at the Brownsville Health Center - there was poor judgment in the failing to report someone, but in the end there was no wrongdoing.

The appearance of wrongdoing is not the same as wrongdoing.

And for the record the appearance of wrong doing was against the Zarate campaign - and you know why I did not report it - because it was a poor judgment problem with an appearance of wrongdoing, but no actual wrongdoing - so I let it go rather than make it into some conspiracy.

When I went after Tony's deceptive ad did you have the same opinion of me? You do not want me to report anything which contradicts what you want people to know.

That is not Freedom of Press - I am not shocked that Pat is unhappy with my reporting - so long as I am going after Tony he loves me - but the second I point out his flaws he has a meltdown.

Virtually every complaint he has against Tony, the story broke on the BV. I am doing my best to prepare and educate the new commission in what they can do to control Tony and limit his power.

What is Pat doing, filing bogus complaints.

So why did Remi tell the Herald something different then he told you Pat - how about do this Pat - call another press conference with your three witnesses and have them call Remi out as a liar.

Then you may have a story - you will not because he will produce his evidence from the SOS that there is no basis to your complaint.

Bobby WC