Monday, November 6, 2017


DECONSTRUCTING THE CARLOS ELIZONDO INDICTMENT - I SMELL A BIG RAT

I am awake because I cannot comprehend the shooting in Texas yesterday.  It was caused by racism plain and simple.  We turn a blind eye to Anglos who present a danger.  I am frozen and cannot sleep.  How do the American people keep on turning a blind eye to Anglos doing these mass murders, while demanding greater investigation over  blacks, browns and Muslims?  Racism, and again we find a lot of innocent Anglos killed by an Anglo, and nothing will change concerning surveillance of these Anglos, nothing.  I am frozen and dumbfounded how deeply rooted racism is in our culture that we would rather die at the hands of an Anglo than equally do surveillance on Anglos.

Click here to read the indictment

Okay, I am sorry I think analytically as a lawyer and view things as a lawyer.  But that is my niche.  You just need to try and think more critically to follow along.  Just because you do not like the class does not mean you do not need to learn the material.

A short story you should read called "The Trial" by Kafka.  The main character is charged with a crime, but never given the facts which form the basis of the crime - hence the term Kafkaesque.  It basically means you are in the dark about the charges.

Now read the indictment and post here wherein in the indictment it says how he used the money which violated his duties?  It says nothing.

The law:  "In a criminal case, the defendant is guaranteed the right to demand the nature and cause of the action against him. DeVaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Thus, the charging instrument itself must convey adequate notice from which the accused may prepare his defense. State v. Carter, 810 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A trial court should grant a motion to quash only where the language regarding the accused's conduct is so vague or indefinite that it fails to give the accused notice of the criminal act he allegedly committed. DeVaughn, 749 S.W.2d at 67."

Where in the indictment does it tell Carlos Elizondo what specifically he did to breach his duties?  He clearly had a right to access the money.  But where in the indictment does it allege specific facts which alleged he accessed the money in an illegal way?  It does not.

Victor Ramirez who basically slept through the Raul Salazar case and then failed to timely set his Motion for New Trial timely, thereby causing his client to go to jail is doing about the same quality job in representing Carlos Elizondo.

The arraignment hearing is on the 8th.  Victor Ramirez should have already filed a motion to quash for vagueness.  He has not.  Carlos Elizondo should fire him forthwith.  But he will not because he is too stupid to have this checked by a real criminal defense attorney.

The indictment must say he used the money for ABCD, which was not within his authority.  It does not.  The indictment is void for vagueness.  Saenz knows this.  So this is how it works.  Victor Ramirez sits on it until the jury is sworn, then files the motion to quash and if granted double jeopardy applies and Elizondo walks.

BUT HERE IS THE QUIRK - WHAT ARE THE ALLEGATIONS

Now Montoya through his secret sources is reporting part of the money was used in May 2014, to fund a recount for Minerva Peña in the JP race.  

So in May Montoya claims Elizondo paid for Peña's recount.  Hum?  The record reflects he announced in January 2014, for BISD.

The below picture shows Elizondo working with Cata Presas-Garcia and Luci Longoria on his BISD race.


How is it possible that Carlos Elizondo used union money to fund the May 2014, recount for Cata's arch enemy Minerva Peña, at the same time he is working with Cata for Carlos' election?

The indictment is dead silent on how the money was used, so it is defective and subject to dismissal based on double jeopardy after the jury is sworn.

So we either agree Victor Ramirez is totally incompetent for not filing the Motion to Quash, or Saenz has already cut a deal to sit on the defective indictment until after the jury is sworn so the charges can be dismissed on void for vagueness and double jeopardy applies. 

Of note, at his announcement for BISD Elizondo thanks Judge McDonald, whose contempt for free speech is second only to Mike Hernandez's , and Minerva Peña.  How did Cata not know Elizondo was working with her arch enemy Minerva Peña?

But then to make this interesting, Elizondo is one of two votes, the other being Cata, against Minerva Peña as Board President, in early 2015.  He goes from paying for her recount, to working with her arch enemy Cata, and then voting against her along with Cata as Board President.  Does any of this make sense?

This smells as rotten as it gets.  Unless a Motion to Quash is filed, Saenz never has to tell the people how Elizondo misused the money.  If he does not know by way of the indictment how the money was misused how does he defend himself.? He cannot not, which is why the indictment is void for vagueness.

I am beginning to believe the rumors someone other then Elizondo is the guilty party but Saenz cut a deal not to indict the guilty party while leaving a defective indictment in place so Carlos Elizono and the real guilty party walks.

My source is telling me the real guilty party is part of Team Saenz.

No fret my friends, the FBI already knows the indictment is defective and set for dismissal on grounds of double jeopardy which allow Carlos and the real guilty party to walk.  They are not going to act.

Yes my writing can be dry and boring, but which other blogger can lay out the legal defects in this manner.  Class is not about what you want to learn, it is about what you need to learn.

Here is how it plays out, Carlos either fires Victor Ramirez for incompetence, or constructively admits to the FBI he is on the scam to have the indictment dismissed after the jury is sworn.  If he does the latter he could find himself doing federal time.   Let's see what he does.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am unclear. Which anglos should we so surveillance on? All of them? How do we determine which ones to watch?

BobbyWC said...

Your question is good but it made my point. So we know who to decide which blacks, browns and Muslims to watch but we cannot find a way to keep an on potential Anglos. God you so made my point.

Here is a clue, Gov. Abbott said he was turned down for a gun license. There is a clue, someone who cannot own a gun buying a gun. No reason to be concerned and check further into his background, such as his conviction and putting him in a data base that he tried to illegally buy a gun, so when the police learned before the shooting of his threats against his in laws who go to the church but were not there, had he been in the system as trying to buy a gun when by law he could not own a gun, they would have picked up on him.

Bobby WC