Thursday, September 17, 2015

I have now reviewed the entire file.  The plaintiff did not request and did not receive an ex parte TRO.  No TRO was ever in place.  They asked for a hearing.  I will upload the Rule 11 Agreement.  All it says is the parties will work on setting a hearing for a TRO in the future.  No Hearing has been set.
The contract used as a basis for the lawsuit is void in my opinion and only an idiot would have advised Dr. Tercero to sign it.  I am hoping it was prepared by the plaintiff because that will make it all that much more unenforceable.  When I look at this contract and the contract for the 8 Liners sold by Saenz I am compelled to asked myself - do lawyers in Cameron county know how to write contracts?  It is child like - something you would expect from a middle school student in a prelaw class to write, which would have gotten him an "F".
There are allegations in the lawsuit which if true could cause major problems for TSC.  But if the underlying contract with the plaintiff is unenforceable, then the lawsuit is over with, because immunity will apply. 
The strong allegations are why I think TSC is moving slow.  It is a show they do not want publicly played out.  It will destroy Dr. Lily Tercero, raise serious questions about the competency of the attorney who advised her to sign the contract, and expose internal practices at TSC which would mandate the immediate dismissal of Dr. Lily Tercero and possible criminal prosecution of one Trustee.
I am not getting into the specifics because they are allegations based on "information and belief."  I am not going to destroy a Trustee's reputation based on allegations based on "information and belief."
My advice to the trustees, remind the attorneys they work for you and demand all documents and a full explanation - because if you do not I can assure you Kiko Rendon and Ed Rivera will make sure Lily Tercero is protected, and taxpayer money is used to keep the dirty little secrets secret.
The contract for services with the Plaintiff never should have been signed as written.  No competent attorney would have put the contract before Dr. Tercero.  But she should have known better and refused to sign it.  It says if notice of non-renewal is not given by a date certain it continues again for the original period of time.
The bottom line is I can find no evidence of a TRO or any document which prevents Jaime Escobedo's company to move forward on providing security.  If it exists it has been removed from the file.
I have now read it.  If the claims are true - I stress the word claims - then at least one Trustee is looking at possible criminal charges.  Having read the lawsuit, I now understand why an attorney hired by the insurance company would sign a Rule 11 Agreement rather than face a TRO hearing.  It is not that the allegations can be proven, but that if they are true, a hearing would have meant hanging their client out to dry.  The allegations are serious enough that if the claims are true and meet the standards as laid out in the Texas Education Code, the plaintiff in fact was entitled to a TRO, and at least one Trustee is looking at criminal charges.
Again I am not saying anything is true - I am just saying I have read it.  It did not have time to read the Rule 11 Agreement or the underlying contract with the plaintiff which forms the basis of the lawsuit.  If the contract says what the plaintiff alleges, then any TSC attorney who approved the contract should be fired forthwith.
So I am off to court to read the Rule 11 Agreement and contract - after breakfast and a quick letter.  I should report back by 11 a.m. 
For bizarre agreement see Art II.  Substantively this is the same tactic which keeps the United Brownsville payment in the TSC budget.  This has to stop
Based on the Rule 11 Agreement and a review of the clerk's file no TRO ever issued, nothing prevents Jaime Escobedo's company from providing security services under the terms of the contract, and the case seems dead while the attorneys negotiate something out pending further hearing.
I personally believe the terms of the original contract are unenforceable as to duration, thereby denying the Plaintiff access to the part of the Education Code which waives immunity for purposes of an injunction.


No comments: