Sunday, October 8, 2017



By putting Tony Martinez and Charlie Cabler in the position of defending the city to allow a convicted felon on the ballot, in the eyes of the people, Tony Martinez become the problem.  Tony will suffer big time for allowing Castro on the ballot especially if in the end he has to justify all of the money the city spent to defend Castro to only lose.

Castro has an organizational meeting at 3 p.m. today.  I can say many sources have called me to tell me as late as last night he was telling people there was no truth to him running, although yesterday morning he had already stated he was running.

This nonsense will stop.  So here is the deal if you are running and will not challenge Castro's name on the ballot then you support convicted felons serving as city commissioners.  I am so so tired of this BS argument that if you challenge him then his supporters will not vote for you in a runoff.  Fine, winning is more important than a clean city commission.  You message has been received loud and clear.

I have confidence in the people and believe the people will reward any candidate who sues to keep a convicted felon off of the ballot.  The people want a clean city commission, and if you cannot understand that then you should not be running for city commission.


I cannot say technically Castro is or is not a convicted felon.  The law is black and white, the court had no legal authority to change his felony conviction.  So there is an order showing he is not a felon, but under the law because the judge had no legal authority to remove the felony conviction the order is a legal nullity and does not exist, thereby making Castro a convicted felon.

Saenz will never do his job.  He played fast and loose with the law in conning Cesar De Leon to resign.  He did it based on political pressure from above.  But Saenz will never do his job to end this nonsense of a convicted felon from running for office.

I would love nothing more than for Castro to sue me on this issue because then the judge can rule the truth is an absolute defense and the felony conviction stands.


In 1980 John Anderson tried to get on the ballot for president in Ohio.  He sued and won at the Supreme Court level.  In the conclusion of the Anderson opinion this is what the court said.

"We began our inquiry by noting that our primary concern is not the interest of candidate Anderson, but rather, the interests of the voters who chose to associate together to express their support for Anderson's candidacy and the views he espoused."

The protected interest is with the voters and not the candidates.  But in Texas the Supreme Court has reversed Anderson and have found the protected interests is with the Candidate.  If a lawyer with the resources would simply step forward and represent a group of citizens challenging Castro's name on the ballot, we would win.  Ballot access cases are expedited.  It would not even have to go to the Court of Appeals.  The law allows when time is an issue for an immediate mandamus to the Texas Supreme Court to resolve the question.

Further, it will be Tony Martinez and Cabler forcing the use of your taxpayers to protect Castro.  If he ever wins they will have his election voided on the following law.  For now they ignore the law and promote a felon on the ballot as a way to split the vote to favor Tony's candidate.  If the city loses it will be humiliated again as hopeless corrupt.  But Tony Martinez and Cabler do not care - it is about power.



The lawyers will be brought back to the nightmare of finals in law school.  If you fail to address every issue, you do not get the points.  Collateral attack, legal nullity, statutory jurisdiction, laches, detrimental reliance, Due Process - etc.

The COB may come up with the excuse that until Saenz does his job the city cannot remove Erasmo from the ballot - wrong - but then the COB lawyers are not known for its knowledge of the law or legal research.

In law this is known as a collateral attack on another court's order.  The key word is order - if the order is void it does not exist so you are not collaterally attacking it.

It is permissible to collaterally attack a judgment of one court in another court of equal jurisdiction if the underlying judgment is void.  Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985). 


Yes, - because the trial court had no jurisdiction to issue such an order it is void - a legal nullity.

This Court's recent decision in State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994) controls the disposition of the instant case.In Bates we affirmed the Eastland Court of Appeals' ruling that a trial court does not have authority to grant a new trial as to punishment only.2 In Bates this Court stated that a new trial for the punishment stage of a criminal action may be granted under Tex. Code Crim.Pro. Art. 44.29. Bates, 889 S.W.2d at 310. However, only appellate courts may grant new trials as to punishment only. Article 44.29(b) reads in pertinent part: 

State v. Hight, 907 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)


Laches in simple terms is an equitable form of limitations - it means if you wait too long to do something you lose.

"However, laches is not applicable when the order subject to the mandamus proceeding is void. See Zimmerman v. Ottis, 941 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding) (“Since mandamus relief in the present case is premised on the entry of a void order, it would not serve the interests of justice or those of the parties to invoke laches as an excuse to ignore that order, and thus to allow the parties to expend further time and effort in connection with a lawsuit that must ultimately be dismissed by the Collin County court or reversed on appeal for want of jurisdiction.”). Therefore, laches is not a bar to mandamus relief in this case".

IN RE: Curtis and Shelley CHESTER, Relators.

What this means is, if the trial court were to deny Saenz's Motion he would be able to take the trial court on mandamus to force the issue.


Texas law is like Texas weather, if you do not like it wait a minute and it will change.  If you are a candidate unwilling to challenge Castro's name on the ballot, then you will not get any positive coverage or coverage at all on the BV.  If you first act as a candidate is to take no action to stop a felon from having his name appear on the ballot, then you are telling us you are not serious about stopping the corruption and game playing.  My view is for you as a candidate, Game Over.


Anonymous said...

What did he do that he is a convicted felon?

BobbyWC said...

I;ve been clear we have technically different orders - one says he was convicted as a felon and another the judge changing it to less than a felony., The law at the time says such an act by the judge would be a legal nullity, so by operation of law with no futher action the original felony conviction stands. So there are two conflicting orders, but probably only one order because if the case law holds the second order changing it from a felony legally does not exist.

1. FORGERY UNKNOWN Felony Unassigned 04/18/1992
2. FORGERY UNKNOWN Felony Unassigned 04/18/1992
Events & Orders of the Court

Anonymous said...

Let's see if I have this straight. Luis Saenz marches in to a minor court in person to tell DeLeon that he has a conflict after he signed a public published call for his resignation, and HE has no objective conflict in this matter?

BobbyWC said...

There is a difference between Saenz and his office. I was not there, but I would be shocked if Saenz was. But otherwise your point is well founded. Cesar has to go and there needs to be a federal investigation as to his own statements whether he resigns or not. My issue is, the method used smells rotten. Saenz has so corrupted his office any ADA who works for him is just as unethical as Saenz. That includes the two female ADA Cesar insulted in an unforgiveable way. He still owes them an apology to their face. But the fact they were attacked by Cesar because of their race, does not excuse them turning a blind eye to Saenz's abuse of his office. Given the number of criminals of African dissent who have been railroaded in our courts by corrupt DA's, I question the integrity of any ADA of African dissent who can work for Saenz. Would they turn a blind eye to someone of African dissent being railroaded by Saenz? Based on what I have seen in the legal community, I can tell you lawyers of all races turn a blind eye to DA's prosecuted improperly alleged criminals of the same race of the ADA turning a blind eye. I took my oath seriously and put everything on the line to defend it. I still do it, but now that the courts cannot control my consulting work for lawyers, they cannot touch me. My name appears no where in all of my work.

I am doing better financially now that when I had my practice. The other night I was called to consult on a mental health issue. The Supreme Court in about 1980, had already answered the question. I knew the answer but drew a blank on the name of the case. As I got in bed it hit me , and I emailed the name of the case to the law firm am I consulting with along with the quote, and complete citation. You see I can normally do in 15 minutes or less the same thing a new lawyer of 5 years or less will take 8 hours to do.

The case Vitek v. Jones. The law firms know I am worth every penny. I am consulting on a case wherein the $600 an hour lawyer hired by the corporation was shocked to hear me explain to them there are three cases which will be decided by the Supreme COurt this term on their only defense. Then I gave them three cases where state Supreme Courts have already found their contract on this issue as void for vagueness. The firm is now negotiating a final settlement. I will get my hourly rate, and the client and the firm will both make a pretty penny.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Then be shocked, because he did, in person. I thought you knew.

BobbyWC said...

I hope you are right. If cesar can grow a pair he can do major damage to SAenz and others.

Bobby WC