Thursday, October 1, 2015

 
JUDGE HANEN SLAMS CATA-PRESAS-GARCIA AND PUTS HER IN AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION
 
As the BV reported from day one her lawsuit on its face against the Board was frivolous.  Legislative immunity applied.  This is exactly what Judge Hanen ruled and then tossed her clams out the door into the heap of nonsense.
 
 
"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.)."
 
WHERE THE LAWSUIT PROCEEDS FOR NOW
 
Judge Hanen made clear that the attorneys for Baltazar Salazar had not sufficiently briefed the issue of whether or not as an attorney for the Board he is a professional employee for immunity purposes. Based on this the case for now continues,  But here is the kicker - lets say after further briefing, the lawsuit continues against Salazar, he is then allowed to defend his alleged comments related to alleged sexual favors to claims allegedly made by others related to Presas-Garcia.  Presas-Garcia could see a host of affidavits being filed painting her in a very negative light on this issue and before a jury with live testimony.  Her husband will certainly be deposed. She might want to think about this before proceeding.  Only she knows if the allegations people have made are true.  We know people love to gossip and lie and in the end all of the claims which have been made may be 100% false.  People lie to settle scores.  But she wants to think about this before proceeding.
 
THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHETHER PRESAS-GARCIA WAS DEFAMED WHEN TWO BOARD MEMBERS CLAIMED DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT AN EMAIL SENT BY PRESAS-GARCIA WAS CRIMINAL
 
Again the court allowed the issue to stand pending further briefing.  First and foremost the truth is an absolute defense.  The next stage will be for the court to review the alleged email and determine if the comment about being criminal was made with reckless disregard for the truth.  If a fact question exists as to the content of the email being criminal, then the claim fails. 
 
So now the taxpayers keep paying as the court sorts out part two.  Presas-Garcia took an ass kicking on the Legislative Immunity issue [as the BV predicted from day one] and on these two remaining issues she will lose.  The court did not rule in her favor.  The court simply found insufficient briefing and evidence to be able to make a ruling.  We shall see where it ends and how much it costs the taxpayers to continue this fiasco.
 
I am not saying there is an ounce of truth to Presas-Garcia's alleged history of improper sexual conduct.  I know enough to know that people lie to settle scores.  On this issue if someone has lied they should be nailed.  But only she knows the truth and she might want to consider the consequences of moving forward on the issue.  She needs to remember this is a character issue, which means the jury and the public will hear a lot about her character if it makes it to trial.

No comments: