Sunday, December 2, 2018


JANET LEAL, THE LAW WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZED IN MY COURT AND WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? NOTHING

EDITORS CORRECTION:

This correction is easy in that it needs to be done.  But it is hard because I consider Justice Hinojosa to be the fairest and most honest visiting judge.  This reversed opinion changes nothing.  The rule is simple you look to the four corners.  But given Justice Hinojosa's reputation for honesty and accuracy, as the county I would appeal.  He must know something the court of appeals left out of the opinion.  I am sorry to Judge Janet Leal.  But she was dead wrong in not identifying her potential conflict of interest in 2014, versus 2017.  Under the rules every judge has a duty to identify a possible conflict of interest before acting in a suit.  Judge Janet Leal did not do her due diligence.

From 2014-2017, Janel Leal rules on every motion finding no reason to recuse herself.  I relied on three years of judicial entries, and the Court of Appeals Opinion. After nearly 3 years of ruling on all motions Judge Janet Leal found a reason to recuse herself - possible conflict of interest.  A judge has a legal duty to look at conflicts of interest from day one, and not three years down the road.  She self recused on 2/28/17, and Justice Hinojosa was appointed.  The getting of the law wrong still stands.  Only in this case the judge was not motivated by money.

But when Judge Janel Leal waited nearly three years to discover this potential conflict of interest, she shamed the court.  The fire got to hot for her.  This nonsense has to end.

ORIGINAL POST

In will concede in many cases the law can be confusing with conflicting court of appeals decisions.  As one lawyer said in a mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court , we cannot allow for the Balkanization of our courts.  This means dividing up the appellate jurisdictions where the results will be different.  I loved his use of the word Balkanization - meaning the break up of Yugoslavia after Tito died and ending up the  the bloody Balkan wars.  The late Justice Bryan White of  the Supreme Court would issue a dissenting opinion in every case where the federal appellate courts arrived at different results - his reasoning the people have the  right to rely on one law, and not the several developed by the different appellate courts.

But then there are cases wherein Judges just have no use for the law and will ignore it.  This case only ended up in the Brownsville Herald because the suit is against the County, former County Clerk and county attorney Juan Gonzalez. It was filed by former county clerk Administrator Leticia Perez.  The average Joe would never get such coverage.

 As to Juan Gonzalez,. I will say what I have said to every county employee who has consulted with me - he will screw you in a NY second.  Leticia Perez is the first to take him on in court.  Maybe now the county employees will realize he exists to screw the employees for the benefit of the county. I hope Leticia Perez nails him so he becomes worthless to the county.  

The county alleged that Leticia Perez's lawsuit should be dismissed because she failed to follow the administrative grievance process.  One problem, even the county admits the manual says the procedure does not apply to discharged employees.  The county is of the opinion that after you fire someone for endless complaints including to the DA and FBI they are shocked to learn they will be sued.

The court of appeals looked to the four corners of the manual and found because it says it does not apply to Leticia Perez, Janel Leal's dismissal of her lawsuit was a black and white violation of the law.

I can assure you, Janel Leal will continue to ignore the law and look to what is in her political interests.  The lawyers who benefit from her contempt for the law will keep on donating to her campaigns because without such a judge they cannot win.

In a case which will go on mandamus come Friday or a week from Monday, the trial judge dismissed a non-existed lawsuit.  You heard me.  TRCP 65 clearly says an amended lawsuit replaces the original.  This major international corporation had their lawyer file a motion to dismiss as a matter of law on the original petition.  The plaintiff filed a first and second amended petition.  The original petition no longer existed.  The rule and case law is all black and white.  The trial judge was told this and found he can dismiss a non-existed lawsuit.  Why?  He does not care if a mandamus issues against him because the lawyers who rely on his contempt for the law will keep on giving to him to insure they keep on winning dispite the law.

The Texas Supreme Court has found under TRCP 65 dismissal of a lawsuit based on the original lawsuit versus the amended lawsuit is a legal nullity and thereby subject to mandamus.  The trial judge will not care because he knows the corrupt lawyers will insure he has  the money to run for reelection and win.

In this case EEOC just notified the plaintiff that their lawyers are in the process of deciding if they will  file the National Discrimination lawsuit, not part of the current lawsuit, or will issue a letter authorizing him to hire a private lawyer.  I have two employment law lawyers in Dallas who want the case.  Both have made millions in EEOC cases and have won cases before the US Supreme Court.  Amazingly because the cases were so black and white the Supreme Court ruled on the Briefs without oral argument.

Will this change the judges's attitude to see a federal judge find for the plaintiff that which he claims has no merit?  Nope - he knows the corrupt lawyers in this town, such as with Janel Leal will keep the money flowing to keep the process corrupted.

The judges are not this issue, it is the system which allows them to so blatantly violate the rights of the poor and working class.  They would all make good Trump federal judges where politics govern their rulings and not the law.  These judges are many things, but Democrats they are not.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The trial court judge was Hinojosa Judge Leal recused herself ...