Thursday, October 19, 2017


One thing that upsets judges and lawyers when dealing with me is, I can deconstruct what everyone believes to be an ironclad contract.  There is no such thing as a contract which is ironclad.


He did not write the Union By-Laws, so as a matter of law even the slightest confusion or doubt in the By-Laws are are construed against the Union and in favor of Elizondo.

If there is anything in the By-Laws which gave Elizondo any discretion over the money, the case must be dismissed for lack of evidence.  If denied it becomes an issue for immediately appeal.  Void for Vagueness.

When I was told about this last night I asked for a copy of all By-Laws or Rules which would apply.  The caller told me he had not seen anything but was surprised I did not raise the Void for Vagueness issue.

If Elizondo wins this on Void for Vagueness based on everything he knows, he will be retiring off into the sunset with a smile on his face, and the taxpayer the poorer for it.

Saenz better go out and hire the best contract construction lawyer he can find to check the By-Laws for any vagueness on how Elizondo could have used the money. It is better to drop the charges now, than to have them thrown out.

Now if the above becomes iffy for both sides, Elizondo will plead down to a misdemeanor.


Anonymous said...

Not shure but doesn't the state and federal law in regards to PACs supersedes stupidity, its like saying to a policeman i didn't know i was speeding you still get the ticket.

BobbyWC said...

I love your post about the ticket. In so many regards it is spot on. State and federal law government PACS. But the power conferred on its leaders which may be void on federal and state law theoretically, does not change the fact he relied on the agreement. I had to go back and check the statute to better answer your question.

"with intent to deprive the owner of property." Let's say for argument sakes, the Pac agreement impermissibly granted Elizondo powers. the law says "with intent to deprive the owner of property." You cannot use the illegality of the agreement to prove his intent if he was just following he words in the agreement.

But great quetion. You extended the conversation which is what I like. Some can say you seemingly challenged me. I see you asked for clarification because you saw an interesting question which needed answered.

Again thanks for extending the discussion. Right now I am out the door to Bela's party, but if you think this needs more discussion feel free to ask away in the same manner you just did. Hey maybe you will make me change my position. That is the purpose of good discource.

Bobby WC