Sunday, July 15, 2018


There is no doubt in my mind Jim Barton is now begging Mike Hernandez to be on his payroll or is already on his payroll.  Jim is either attacking me, Mike's nemesis, or backing Mike's machinations. Mike Hernandez is incredibly adept at picking losers.  Drunks, deadbeat dads jailed for non-payment of child support, racists, deadbeats who need to be sued to pay their workers or for the husband to pay his child support, husband abusers based on arrest records, and on and on and on.  If these are the only people who will associate with Mike Hernandez what does that tell you?


She is a practicing lawyer.  The problem is Barton and Montoya just lie because they are ignorant.  The fact of the matter is at least one of Trump's judicial picks had to withdraw because as a practicing  lawyer he had never  tried a case.

Yes my friends practicing lawyers who have never tried a case are a dime a dozen.  Exactly how many cases have Barton and Montoya tried to be able to speak to this issue.  I have tried over a hundred, and continue to consult live during trials over the internet to make sure error is preserved in the objection, suggest follow-up questions, and provide immediate research on the law.

Many people who are corporate lawyers are not admitted to practice law anywhere. Practicing lawyers for charities never go into the courtroom. The examples go on and on. Most would have done a clerkship with the corporation and are hired on that basis so they never take the  Bar examine. You only need a license if you are practicing in court.  And in this country any law firm or corporation can pay someone like me more than most practicing lawyers earn because I have a high level of expertise.  They bill me to the client as an employee - nothing more nothing less. I never bill anyone because I am an employee, or contract labor.  Contract labor para-legals are a dime a dozen.


She is a real estate lawyer and developer.  She is practicing law every day.  This communist homosexual device called google actually has information which could be helpful to Mike Hernandez's cabal of paid whores.


Now on this one I am saying I cannot find the notice of the meeting to authorize Cesar de Leon to hire Rene Oliviera.  Rene Oliviera may have a problem to show authority.  If someone has that notice of meeting I will certainly post it and take this issue off of the table.

Now read 6.01 of the by-laws.  Cesar must be authorized by the Board to contract with Rene Oliviera.  If there is no notice of such a meeting you have another TOMA violation.


First there is the notice issue.  That one can be on the fence.  The case law is clear on the general issue of clarity.  But Rene's argument fails when the notice of hearing on the 21st and 26th are compared as to intent.  Further the fact Cesar hired Rene without compliance with 6.01 of the by-laws, that also goes to intent on his part.

I will not be at the hearing. I have to get to San Antonio to meet with my neurosurgeon.  I hope we are ready to do the surgery.  A former client, for the record I was corporate counsel for a team of doctors and never appeared in court for them, told me to expect 6 month of recovery and physical therapy for my surgery and at least 2-3 weeks of intense pain after the surgery.


If the position does not exist, it does not exist and they cannot hire someone for a non-existed position.


In law school issue identification is everything.  If you say liver cancer when your patient has pancreatic cancer, your patient dies.

The BV posted on the mootness doctrine from the beginning.  I did not have to do the research to know it was not moot if they just held a second meeting to fix the original problem.

The issue is did they violate TOMA.  Hence the question cannot become moot by simply doing it right.  The case law is settled on this.

 "If a governmental body illegally deliberates and decides an issue in closed session, repealing the action so that it can be retaken in a later setting does not vindicate the very right protected by TOMA. As stated by our supreme court:  “Our citizens are entitled to more than a result.   They are entitled not only to know what government decides but to observe how and why every decision is reached.”  Acker, 790 S.W.2d at 300.   Accordingly, we conclude that Ramos's request for a declaration that appellants violated the statute, coupled with the potential remedy involving the certified agenda, establishes that this issue is not moot.   We overrule the second issue."

In the end I have no idea what will happen.  I need to leave Wednesday for my Thursday appointment in SA.  If I stay for the hearing, then I will be forced to drive in the dark and I cannot do that.  Because I am holding over for a meeting in Austin, I cannot bring a driver.


The BV broke the story on the Casa Del Nylon con.  The BV even in recent weeks stated a competent lawyer can still undo that deal.  It is about rules and no sacred cows.  The BV from day one on this story said although the claims of TOMA and by-law violations are good, to not let there be any mistake this is a battle between two political forces for control.  But the law still applies.


The BV wrote that it was expected that counsel for GBIC be notified of the intent to seek a TRO.  The BV hides nothing.  Luis Hernandez had plenty of advance notice to notify Nurith and her counsel who would appear for the GBIC.  Luis Hernandez chose to say nothing or notify Nurith's counsel who would appear at the TRO hearing.

There is case law on this issue.

But the idea the judge is going to void the TRO on this issue is absurd.  He is not going to void the TRO when it becomes moot upon the granting of the Temporary Injunction.  It automatically is dissolved if the TI is granted.  If the TI is not granted, the TRO is automatically dissolved.  Rene Oliviera is defrauding the GBIC with such stupid arguments.  It is about billable hours and not his client.

Rene Oliviera is billing the GBIC for stupid arguments no judge is going to buy.

No comments: