Wednesday, December 16, 2015

 
MUNICIPAL JUDGE JOHN WILLIAMSON SET ROBERT SANCHEZ BOND AT $6,000
 
The problem is multifold.  Ben Neece has never saw fit to demand the DA's office provide a set of guidelines for setting bail.  $6,000 is way too low for someone already out on bail for two other domestic abuse cases - one against his wife and one against his eldest son.
 
This was incredibly poor judgment on the part of Williamson and his continued employment as a municipal judge needs to be put under review.
 
BUT SAENZ IS THE BIGGER PROBLEM
 
Saenz needs to set rules which mandate his office is contacted for an opinion concerning bail in domestic abuse cases, and other type serious crimes.  In other counties lower level judges actually have a set of guidelines written by the DA's office.  If the judge ignores the guidelines the DA will go to court to have the bond increased.  But this is Saenz.
 
We have an incredibly volatile situation concerning domestic abuse, with both parents fueling the fire, a district court judge who gets a complete "F" for his failure to bring it under control, and a DA with his head so far up his ass surgeons have called an operation futile.  Why are Masso and SoRelle not screaming at the top of their lungs about the complete failure of the system in this case?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are a boat load of divorces going on out three Bobby. You decide to expose this one...why? This is nothing out of the ordinary in divorce court, you know this full WEEL...fo sit in on family court...but you choose to exploit this one.....why this one and not cover the hundres in the court system?

BobbyWC said...

I have personally represented a lot of people in divorce and it is rare you see this level of animosity. I am proud of that multimillion dollar divorce wherein the husband with the money worked with me for a very fare and equitable division of the property which included a very large college trust fund.

Further, not every divorce has one of the parties in the news [got it in the news - not every divorce is covered in the news] and a party is a public figure.

According to you every divorce has one of the parties with three assault charges during the divorce and this level of animosity. On what planet do you live.

Further, I have lead on the issue of domestic abuse. How would you expect me to not cover this story.

I did not break the story - the news services broke the story - I just developed the story because I have the skills and the journalists do not

I rejected two comments this morning which contained claims which I later found to be in the pleadings. I needed to see it myself before I was going to allow for claims of drug use or that Joe Garza Sr. allegedly threatened Robert Sanchez. I cover both sides equally while putting the children first.

An a less issue is Judge De Coss. He messed this case up and it is important people know that in that he is seeking reelection.

But nice try at a distraction.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

You always cry "what about the children!".... You did it to Jessica Tetreau, you did it to Sergio Zarate, and now you are doing it to the Sanchez couple.....the children are not even being mentioned...you are the one that brings them up....sicko!

BobbyWC said...

You are only making it worse - so the assault charge pending against him for allegedly assaulting his son does not mention his son. Which note I have not used their names.

The filing by Lorrie that he slapped one of the younger children and made two of them get out of the car is not mentioning the children.

Lorrie requesting that his visitation rights be terminated is not mentioning the children.

I have seen this too many times in children. I know that competent judges do - when you have domestic violence and this level of fire you send both parents for parenting classes so they learn how their battle is impacting their children.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

The problem is when someone is out on bail for two family assaults and then arrested for assault on a senior you do not set bail at $6,000. But like I said a lot of this is on Saenz for not having guidelines in place or even a system wherein his office immediately goes to court to get a higher bail. Hell he does not even have a system in place to file a motion to revoke on the existing bonds.

The entire system is broken. When someone on bond goes out and allegedly commits another crime he/she should be held to allow the DA to decide what they want to do - set a very high bond - revoke the previous bonds. But the municipal judges in large part through Ben Neece's lack of competence and Saenz's lack on interest just keep allowing those charged with crimes to keep on stacking them up with no consequences as to existing bonds for existing crimes.

The system is very broken - I would hope SoRelle would make an issue of this basic problem so that the people know Saenz is truly a joke.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bail and bond's sole purpose is to insure further appearance, not a damn thing more. Your argument is apecious and Judge Williamson performed correctly.

BobbyWC said...

As is always the case with cowardly trolls who will not ID themselves you are wrong - dead wrong and so too was Williamson.

Art. 17.15. RULES FOR FIXING AMOUNT OF BAIL. The amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court, judge, magistrate or officer taking the bail; they are to be governed in the exercise of this discretion by the Constitution and by the following rules:

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.

4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.

Sanchez already had two bonds out for domestic abuse - each at $5,000.

The future safety of the victim and his family is certainly at issue given he already had two other cases of family assault. A new bond for only a $1,000 more which means $100 does not take into account the safety to the family, By the new charge he proved being out on bond is not going to deter him.

Are you so stupid you think I cannot post the law?

Bobby WC