Tuesday, June 11, 2019


Let the record show the BV was the first to come to Erasmo's defense.  It is about right from wrong.  Montoya knew dam well the bogus orchestrated claims would take hold.  Further his false  implication he cares about Castro is not playing with the educated.


States do not like when their laws are held unconstitutional.  In Texas such as most states, our law books are filled with laws held unconstitutional.  The States do not remove them in hopes people will still follow the unconstitutional law.

Unfortunately even the best news services make the same mistake as  Barton.  It is a matter of not being educated in the criminal enterprise known as the law.

Barton posted another suspect flyer while making a big issue about violation of § 255.001, of the election code.  As could be expected Duardo went after him for it.  Duardo with all of his "advanced" training in journalism and work, failed to check the law and ignored the fact there is nothing illegal about the flyer.  But like I said good newspapers and news services make this mistake all of the time. 

Of note I was a consultant on the case below.  The victim was a student of Jose Angel Gutierrez in terms of running for political office.  They did not like my analysis that the unidentified flyer was in fact constitutional.  

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

"We granted the state's Petition for Discretionary Review in this case to determine whether § 255.001 of the Texas Election Code (1) passes constitutional muster. We hold that it does not.
During a campaign for Dallas municipal offices, appellant created and circulated a political flyer that described an incumbent candidate for the Dallas City Council as "Pinocchio." The flyer was published anonymously and distributed by a publishing company through a bulk mailing. After the election, the Dallas County District Attorney's office received a complaint pointing out that the flier, contrary to the requirements of § 255.001, did not contain the name and address of the person contracting for its publication. Ultimately, appellant was indicted for violating § 255.001. In response to the indictment, appellant filed a motion to set it aside, contending that § 255.001 was unconstitutional because it sought to regulate core political speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.
Appellant is correct. We hold that § 255.001, on its face, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirm the court of appeals' opinion upholding the trial court's dismissal of the charges against appellant. (2)
The United States Supreme Court has long held that the distribution of political leaflets that advocate controversial viewpoints is the essence of First Amendment expression. See e.g. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938). In 1995, the Supreme Court held that no form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection than political speech and, when a law burdens core political speech, "exacting scrutiny" must be applied and the statute may be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 347 (1995). (3)
The Supreme Court also held that compelled identification of the author against that person's will is particularly intrusive, as it reveals unmistakably the content of his or her thoughts on a controversial issue. Id. at 355."

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Doe v. Texas

The blogs are being played in the dirtiest of ways.  What I am hearing is people are tired of them.  I love going to Bingo if for no other reason than the hugs I get and taps on the back thanking me for the BV.  I really do not care if I win.  I just love socializing with so many people.  But what I am hearing is the blogs and social media in Brownsville are becoming a circus, not to be believed. 

But to be clear Barton's mistake on the law is very common even among the best journalist.  Hell even lawyers fail to do the proper research and are shocked during oral arguments when the case is handed to them that the law they are relying on was held unconstitutional.

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

I do not print comments on his personal life.

Bobby WC