The law, which is relevant provides strict oversight by the judge.
"(l) Proceedings commenced under this chapter may not proceed to hearing unless the judge who is to conduct the hearing is satisfied that this article has been complied with and that the attorney representing the state will introduce into evidence at the hearing any answer received from an inquiry required by Subsections (c)-(h) of this article. "
Judge Banales like every other trained judicial monkey proved he would sign his own death warrant. Judge Banales’ willingness to sign anything without insuring strict compliance with the law is a major cause for the corruption which has Cameron County by the short hairs. It is time Governor Perry rethink Judge Banales’ appointment and demand his resignation. Oh, that is right, Governor Perry is in a permanent state of holding is knees at the command of Dannenbaum.
The law required that the BND be given notice of the lawsuit, and in fact served a copy of the lawsuit.
"Furthermore, Arambula didn't mind that District Attorney Armando Villalobos did not give BND notice of the intended forfeiture of $1 million from Dannenbaum's firm, perhaps stripping BND's right to claim the money for itself."
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/bnd_86143___article.html/board_bridge.html
"This is cover-up Brownsville style - "we are so confident we can get away with it, we are going to announce it publicly." Any BND Board Member unwilling to demand a criminal investigation into how DA Villalobos secured the forfeiture without being able to name the source of the money, is not fit for public office. In my opinion a deal was cut to protect Dannenbaum from further exposure in exchange for 1 million dollars.
HOMERO VILLARREAL
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
BROWNSVILLE VOICE
BROWNSVILLE VOICE
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Tip of the Iceberg: Fwd: [Corpus Christi Caller Times] Remember the Cucuy vs Two Fer adversarial rel...
Tip of the Iceberg: Fwd: [Corpus Christi Caller Times] Remember the Cucuy vs Two Fer adversarial rel...
We are only seeing the Tip of the Iceberg: kenedeno
Let the ELite Cannibalize themselves.
Personally,only one of those men have sat down, agreed and moved to align with myself (& LOS KENEDENOS) but ignorantly failed to heed the crucial advice (PUT UP A BIG STOP SIGN IN ROBSTOWN) and failed to build a working relationship with Homero. As for TWO FER, now there is a Drama King and the DRAMA is only beginning.
We are only seeing the Tip of the Iceberg: kenedeno
Monday, May 05, 2008
The State responded that it had no such evidence in its custody or control. Yes they do, because that evidence would prove the matter asserted is.....
the truth. What is wrong with that? Why would that evidence be intentionally outside the custody or control of the Malicious prosecutors?
That is the truth, on video, evidence of the charge the state is prosecuting alleged defendant's life and evidence of a crime.
Where the Fruck is the tape?
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window
sotseal6.gif
NUMBER 13-02-169-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
WILLIAM RAY GEARHART, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Castillo
The State indicted William Ray Gearhart, appellant, as a repeat felony offender for assaulting a public servant. Footnote On March 5, 2002, a jury convicted Gearhart and sentenced him to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We conclude that Gearhart's appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Gearhart filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 8, 2002. In the notice, Gearhart complained about his trial counsel's representation. He asked the trial court to appoint appellate counsel to represent him. The trial court appointed new counsel for him on appeal. Gearhart's appellate counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967).
II. APPLICABLE APPELLATE RULES
The rules of appellate procedure governing how appeals proceed in criminal cases were amended effective January 1, 2003. Generally, rules altering procedure do not fall within the prohibition in the Texas Constitution against retroactive application of laws that disturb vested, substantive rights. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 16; see also Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Therefore, this Court applies the current rules of appellate procedure to this appeal. We may not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities. Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We also are prohibited from affirming or reversing a judgment or dismissing an appeal if the record prevents the proper presentation of an appeal and can be corrected by the trial court. Tex. R. App. P. 44.4(a). Accordingly, we abated the appeal on July 21, 2003 and ordered a supplemental record to include, in compliance with rule 25.2(a)(2), the trial court's certification of Gearhart's right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We received a supplemental record on December 10, 2003 that includes the trial court's certification that Gearhart has the right of appeal. We now turn to the merits.
III. DISPOSITION
A. Anders Brief
Gearhart's original court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. Counsel certifies: (1) he diligently reviewed the record for reversible error; (2) he was unable to find any error that would arguably require reversal of the trial court's judgment; (3) in his opinion, the appeal is without merit; (4) he served a copy of the brief on Gearhart; and (5) he informed Gearhart of his right to review a complete copy of the appellate record and file a pro se brief on his own behalf. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
An Anders brief must provide references to both legal precedent and pages in the record to demonstrate why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, but does contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). With relevant citation to legal precedent and the record, counsel professionally evaluates the indictment, pre-trial motions, voir dire, opening statements, sufficiency of the evidence, jury charge, closing argument, and punishment phase. Arguable grounds of error should be advanced by counsel as required by Anders, if there are any. See id. However, we do not interpret Anders as requiring appointed counsel to make arguments counsel would not consider worthy of inclusion in a brief for a paying client or to urge reversal if, in fact, counsel finds no arguable issue to appeal. See id. We hold that counsel's brief is not the “conclusory statement” decried by Anders. See id.
In response to counsel's brief, Gearhart filed a pro se brief. Gearhart's original appointed counsel withdrew while this appeal was pending. The trial court appointed substitute appellate counsel.
B. Pro Se Brief
Gearhart asserts he was falsely accused of assaulting a public servant, a police officer with the Kingsville Police Department. He maintains that after he filed an internal affairs complaint regarding the incident, he was retaliated against when the State arrested him again for filing a false report and charged him with aggravated perjury. Generally, Gearhart challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. He claims he was attacked, without provocation, by two Kingsville police officers. He denies he attacked one of the officers first. He cites to purported inconsistencies in the testimony at trial in support of his position. Gearhart also claims that the State did not present evidence of his prior conviction for assault on a public servant to support his conviction and resulting enhanced punishment as a repeat felony offender.
Gearhart also complains his trial counsel was ineffective. He argues that his trial counsel did not subpoena the videotape from the arresting officer's squad car or the audiotapes of an emergency call made by a witness, a clerk at the convenience store where the altercation took place. The tapes, Gearhart asserts, would have substantiated his version of events. Gearhart also alleges his counsel was ineffective by not objecting to the jury. He claims that jurors who indicated in voir dire they knew the prosecutor or his family ended up on the jury and that his trial counsel permitted venire members to remain on the jury despite Gearhart's instructions to the contrary. Further, Gearhart alleges his trial counsel was ineffective by not delivering a closing argument that challenged the testimony of the officer about an injury that the officer had not included in his original report of the incident. Finally, Gearhart complains that his trial counsel made an inappropriate remark to the prosecutor, after the jury retired to deliberate, reflecting counsel's belief that the jury would find Gearhart guilty.
C. Independent Review of the Record
Since this is an Anders case, we independently review the record for error. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see also Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christ 2002, no pet.).
1. The Indictment
The indictment properly alleges the offense of assault of a public servant. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b), (d) (Vernon 2003). It also properly alleges three prior offenses as repeat felony offender enhancement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon 2003). Even if errors did exist in the indictment, the error could not be raised on appeal because Gearhart did not file a pre-trial motion alleging any error in the indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 1977); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We find no arguable error in the indictment.
2. Pre-Trial Motions
The record reflects that the trial court heard Gearhart's discovery motion regarding production of the videotape from the arresting officer's squad car and any audiotape of the emergency call made by the convenience store clerk. The State responded that it had no such evidence in its custody or control. The trial court ruled it would permit Gearhart to subpoena any relevant videotapes or audiotapes for trial. Thus, the record reflects that the trial court did not make any ruling adverse to Gearhart. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. We find no arguable error in the trial court's pre-trial rulings.
3. Voir Dire
A review of the voir dire examination shows that sixteen venire members knew the prosecutor, a long-time resident of Kingsville, or his family. They all indicated they would consider the facts of the case and not base their decision on their knowledge of the prosecutor or his family. Neither the State nor Gearhart raised any challenge for cause. Thus, the trial court could not have erroneously ruled. See Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see also Allen v. State, 54 S.W.3d 427, 428 (Tex. App.–Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). Further, the trial court did not limit Gearhart's questioning of the jury. See Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We find no arguable error in voir dire.
4. Opening Statements
As a general rule, to preserve error for appellate review, Gearhart must have made a timely, specific objection, at the earliest opportunity, and obtained an adverse ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Each side presented opening statements. Neither side objected to the other's. Gearhart thus waived any error in the prosecution's opening statement. See Limas v. State, 941 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1996, pet. ref'd) (finding waiver for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument). We find no arguable error in the prosecution's opening statement.
5. Sufficiency of the Evidence
a. Standards of Review
(1) Legal Sufficiency
A legal-sufficiency challenge calls for appellate review of the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We consider all the evidence that sustains the conviction, whether properly or improperly admitted or whether introduced by the prosecution or the defense, in determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Similarly, in reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we look to all of the evidence introduced during either stage of the trial. De Garmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
In a jury trial, legal sufficiency is measured against the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A hypothetically correct jury charge is one that "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried." Id. A hypothetically correct jury charge would not simply quote from the controlling statute. Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Its scope is limited by "the statutory elements of the offense . . . as modified by the charging instrument." Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Keller, J., concurring); Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When a statute lists more than one method of committing an offense, and the indictment alleges some, but not all, of the statutorily listed methods, the State is limited to the methods alleged. Fuller, 73 S.W.3d at 255; Curry, 30 S.W.3d at 404. This standard of legal sufficiency ensures that a judgment of acquittal is reserved for those situations in which there is an actual failure in the State's proof of the crime. Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240. We then determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7.
If we reverse a criminal case for legal insufficiency following a jury trial, we reform the judgment to reflect conviction for a lesser offense only if: (1) we find that the evidence is sufficient to support conviction of the lesser offense; and (2) a jury charge on the lesser offense was either submitted or requested but denied. Collier v. State, 999 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (plurality op.) (discussing circumstances under which court of appeals may reform judgment following jury trial to reflect conviction for lesser offense); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (clarifying same). Otherwise, we vacate the judgment of conviction for legal insufficiency and order a judgment of acquittal. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 95.
(2) Factual Sufficiency
We also measure the factual sufficiency of the evidence against a hypothetically correct jury charge. Adi v. State, 94 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd). We are constitutionally empowered to review the judgment of the trial court to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence used to establish the elements of the charged offense. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 6. In determining the factual sufficiency of the elements of the offense, we view all the evidence neutrally, not through the prism of "the light most favorable to the prosecution." Id. at 6-7 (citing Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). We set aside a finding of guilt only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Id. at 7. A clearly wrong and unjust finding of guilt is "manifestly unjust," "shocks the conscience," or "clearly demonstrates bias." Rojas v. State, 986 S.W.2d 241, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
In conducting a factual-sufficiency review, we review the fact finder's weighing of the evidence. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7 (citing Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 133). We review the evidence that tends to prove a material disputed fact and compare it with evidence that tends to disprove it. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We are authorized to disagree with the fact finder's determination. Id. However, we approach a factual-sufficiency review with appropriate deference to avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder. Id. Our evaluation should not intrude substantially on the fact finder's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony. Id.
We always remain aware of the fact finder's role and unique position, a position we are unable to occupy. Id. at 9. Exercise of our authority to disagree with the fact finder's determination is appropriate only when the record clearly indicates our intervention is necessary to stop manifest injustice. Id. Otherwise, we accord due deference to the fact finder's determinations, particularly those concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id.
Every fact need not point directly and independently to the accused's guilt. Vanderbilt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A finding of guilt can rest on the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. Id. We reverse a judgment of conviction only if proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the fact finder's determination, or proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 97. Which standard applies generally depends on whether the complaining party had the burden of proof at trial. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). If the accused did not have the burden of proof at trial, then the first or "manifestly unjust" standard applies. Id. If the accused had the burden of proof at trial, then the second or "against the great weight and preponderance" standard applies. Id.
In conducting a factual-sufficiency review in an opinion, we "show our work" when we consider and address the appellant's main argument for urging insufficiency of the evidence. Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9; Manning v. State, 112 S.W.3d 740, 747 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet. h.); see Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. This practice benefits the parties, maintains the integrity of the justice system, and improves appellate practice. Sims, 99 S.W.3d at 603; Manning, 112 S.W.3d at 747. If we reverse a criminal case for factual insufficiency, we vacate the judgment of conviction. Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 133-34. We remand for a new trial a criminal case reversed for factual insufficiency, so a second fact finder has the chance to evaluate the evidence. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 97.
b. Sufficiency Analysis
(1) Legal Sufficiency
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and measuring it against a hypothetically correct jury charge, we find that the arresting officer testified to each of the elements of the offense of assault of a public servant. Gearhart struck the uniformed officer while the officer was in the process of detaining him in response to a public-disturbance complaint. Gearhart's assault bruised the officer and chipped his tooth. The convenience store clerk corroborated the officer's testimony. Gearhart stipulated in open court, in the presence of counsel, to the prior felony conviction, also for assault on a public servant. Viewing the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime, including the repeat felony offender allegation. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; see also Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7.
(2) Factual Sufficiency
We view all the evidence neutrally, favoring neither the State nor Gearhart, and measure it against a hypothetically correct jury charge. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 6-7; Adi, 94 S.W.3d at 131. In addition to the arresting officer and convenience store clerk's testimony, Gearhart testified in his own defense. He admitted he had been drinking and had gotten into a disagreement with the clerk about getting free matches from the store. He admitted he had marijuana in his pocket. He denied assaulting the officer, however. Rather, he said the officer who testified and a second officer assaulted him without provocation. Finally, Gearhart admitted he had been convicted before for assaulting a public servant, although he stressed that the public servant he assaulted that time was a corrections officer, not a police officer. Viewing the relevant evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither the prosecution nor Gearhart, and with appropriate deference to the jury's credibility determinations, we conclude that the jury's verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Id. at 6-7.
Accordingly, we find no arguable legal or factual insufficiency of the evidence. 6. The Charge
Gearhart did not object to the charge. Thus, to be reversible, any error would have to constitute egregious harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157,171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). We find no arguable egregious error in the charge. 7. Closing Argument
Neither party objected to the other's closing argument. Thus, Gearhart waived any error. See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Limas, 941 S.W.2d at 203. We find no arguable error in the prosecutor's jury argument.
8. Punishment Phase
The record shows that Gearhart stipulated to the prior felony assault of a public servant in the culpability phase of the trial, which evidence supported his enhanced punishment as a repeat felony offender. To preserve any error in the punishment phase, Gearhart must have made a timely, specific objection, at the earliest opportunity, and obtained an adverse ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Gearhart did not object at sentencing on any basis. We find that he waived any challenge to the sentence imposed by the jury. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Moreover, the sentence assessed was within the statutorily permissible range and was based on admissible evidence introduced during the trial. See Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). We find no arguable error in the sentencing proceedings.
9. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The record contains no evidentiary support for Gearhart's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. When the alleged ineffectiveness asserted by a defendant occurs outside of the record, the proper vehicle for a complaint is a collateral attack that permits the development of facts concerning the alleged errors of counsel. Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
Accordingly, our independent review of the record finds that Gearhart's appeal is frivolous. We conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80; see also Martin v. State, No. 13-02-118-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 10181, at *3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Dec. 4, 2003, no pet. h.). We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
D. Motion to Withdraw
An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). Substitute appellate counsel in this case has not requested to withdraw from further representation of Gearhart on appeal. We hereby order counsel to advise Gearhart promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We further order counsel to file any motion to withdraw as court-appointed counsel with this Court within ten days of the date of this opinion. See Martin, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 10181, at *4.
ERRLINDA CASTILLO
Justice
Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 11th day of December 2003.
That is the truth, on video, evidence of the charge the state is prosecuting alleged defendant's life and evidence of a crime.
Where the Fruck is the tape?
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window
sotseal6.gif
NUMBER 13-02-169-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
WILLIAM RAY GEARHART, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Castillo
The State indicted William Ray Gearhart, appellant, as a repeat felony offender for assaulting a public servant. Footnote On March 5, 2002, a jury convicted Gearhart and sentenced him to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We conclude that Gearhart's appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Gearhart filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 8, 2002. In the notice, Gearhart complained about his trial counsel's representation. He asked the trial court to appoint appellate counsel to represent him. The trial court appointed new counsel for him on appeal. Gearhart's appellate counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967).
II. APPLICABLE APPELLATE RULES
The rules of appellate procedure governing how appeals proceed in criminal cases were amended effective January 1, 2003. Generally, rules altering procedure do not fall within the prohibition in the Texas Constitution against retroactive application of laws that disturb vested, substantive rights. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 16; see also Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Therefore, this Court applies the current rules of appellate procedure to this appeal. We may not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities. Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We also are prohibited from affirming or reversing a judgment or dismissing an appeal if the record prevents the proper presentation of an appeal and can be corrected by the trial court. Tex. R. App. P. 44.4(a). Accordingly, we abated the appeal on July 21, 2003 and ordered a supplemental record to include, in compliance with rule 25.2(a)(2), the trial court's certification of Gearhart's right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We received a supplemental record on December 10, 2003 that includes the trial court's certification that Gearhart has the right of appeal. We now turn to the merits.
III. DISPOSITION
A. Anders Brief
Gearhart's original court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. Counsel certifies: (1) he diligently reviewed the record for reversible error; (2) he was unable to find any error that would arguably require reversal of the trial court's judgment; (3) in his opinion, the appeal is without merit; (4) he served a copy of the brief on Gearhart; and (5) he informed Gearhart of his right to review a complete copy of the appellate record and file a pro se brief on his own behalf. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
An Anders brief must provide references to both legal precedent and pages in the record to demonstrate why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, but does contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). With relevant citation to legal precedent and the record, counsel professionally evaluates the indictment, pre-trial motions, voir dire, opening statements, sufficiency of the evidence, jury charge, closing argument, and punishment phase. Arguable grounds of error should be advanced by counsel as required by Anders, if there are any. See id. However, we do not interpret Anders as requiring appointed counsel to make arguments counsel would not consider worthy of inclusion in a brief for a paying client or to urge reversal if, in fact, counsel finds no arguable issue to appeal. See id. We hold that counsel's brief is not the “conclusory statement” decried by Anders. See id.
In response to counsel's brief, Gearhart filed a pro se brief. Gearhart's original appointed counsel withdrew while this appeal was pending. The trial court appointed substitute appellate counsel.
B. Pro Se Brief
Gearhart asserts he was falsely accused of assaulting a public servant, a police officer with the Kingsville Police Department. He maintains that after he filed an internal affairs complaint regarding the incident, he was retaliated against when the State arrested him again for filing a false report and charged him with aggravated perjury. Generally, Gearhart challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. He claims he was attacked, without provocation, by two Kingsville police officers. He denies he attacked one of the officers first. He cites to purported inconsistencies in the testimony at trial in support of his position. Gearhart also claims that the State did not present evidence of his prior conviction for assault on a public servant to support his conviction and resulting enhanced punishment as a repeat felony offender.
Gearhart also complains his trial counsel was ineffective. He argues that his trial counsel did not subpoena the videotape from the arresting officer's squad car or the audiotapes of an emergency call made by a witness, a clerk at the convenience store where the altercation took place. The tapes, Gearhart asserts, would have substantiated his version of events. Gearhart also alleges his counsel was ineffective by not objecting to the jury. He claims that jurors who indicated in voir dire they knew the prosecutor or his family ended up on the jury and that his trial counsel permitted venire members to remain on the jury despite Gearhart's instructions to the contrary. Further, Gearhart alleges his trial counsel was ineffective by not delivering a closing argument that challenged the testimony of the officer about an injury that the officer had not included in his original report of the incident. Finally, Gearhart complains that his trial counsel made an inappropriate remark to the prosecutor, after the jury retired to deliberate, reflecting counsel's belief that the jury would find Gearhart guilty.
C. Independent Review of the Record
Since this is an Anders case, we independently review the record for error. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see also Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christ 2002, no pet.).
1. The Indictment
The indictment properly alleges the offense of assault of a public servant. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b), (d) (Vernon 2003). It also properly alleges three prior offenses as repeat felony offender enhancement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon 2003). Even if errors did exist in the indictment, the error could not be raised on appeal because Gearhart did not file a pre-trial motion alleging any error in the indictment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 1977); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We find no arguable error in the indictment.
2. Pre-Trial Motions
The record reflects that the trial court heard Gearhart's discovery motion regarding production of the videotape from the arresting officer's squad car and any audiotape of the emergency call made by the convenience store clerk. The State responded that it had no such evidence in its custody or control. The trial court ruled it would permit Gearhart to subpoena any relevant videotapes or audiotapes for trial. Thus, the record reflects that the trial court did not make any ruling adverse to Gearhart. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. We find no arguable error in the trial court's pre-trial rulings.
3. Voir Dire
A review of the voir dire examination shows that sixteen venire members knew the prosecutor, a long-time resident of Kingsville, or his family. They all indicated they would consider the facts of the case and not base their decision on their knowledge of the prosecutor or his family. Neither the State nor Gearhart raised any challenge for cause. Thus, the trial court could not have erroneously ruled. See Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see also Allen v. State, 54 S.W.3d 427, 428 (Tex. App.–Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). Further, the trial court did not limit Gearhart's questioning of the jury. See Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We find no arguable error in voir dire.
4. Opening Statements
As a general rule, to preserve error for appellate review, Gearhart must have made a timely, specific objection, at the earliest opportunity, and obtained an adverse ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Each side presented opening statements. Neither side objected to the other's. Gearhart thus waived any error in the prosecution's opening statement. See Limas v. State, 941 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1996, pet. ref'd) (finding waiver for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument). We find no arguable error in the prosecution's opening statement.
5. Sufficiency of the Evidence
a. Standards of Review
(1) Legal Sufficiency
A legal-sufficiency challenge calls for appellate review of the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We consider all the evidence that sustains the conviction, whether properly or improperly admitted or whether introduced by the prosecution or the defense, in determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Similarly, in reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we look to all of the evidence introduced during either stage of the trial. De Garmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
In a jury trial, legal sufficiency is measured against the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A hypothetically correct jury charge is one that "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried." Id. A hypothetically correct jury charge would not simply quote from the controlling statute. Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Its scope is limited by "the statutory elements of the offense . . . as modified by the charging instrument." Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Keller, J., concurring); Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When a statute lists more than one method of committing an offense, and the indictment alleges some, but not all, of the statutorily listed methods, the State is limited to the methods alleged. Fuller, 73 S.W.3d at 255; Curry, 30 S.W.3d at 404. This standard of legal sufficiency ensures that a judgment of acquittal is reserved for those situations in which there is an actual failure in the State's proof of the crime. Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240. We then determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7.
If we reverse a criminal case for legal insufficiency following a jury trial, we reform the judgment to reflect conviction for a lesser offense only if: (1) we find that the evidence is sufficient to support conviction of the lesser offense; and (2) a jury charge on the lesser offense was either submitted or requested but denied. Collier v. State, 999 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (plurality op.) (discussing circumstances under which court of appeals may reform judgment following jury trial to reflect conviction for lesser offense); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (clarifying same). Otherwise, we vacate the judgment of conviction for legal insufficiency and order a judgment of acquittal. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 95.
(2) Factual Sufficiency
We also measure the factual sufficiency of the evidence against a hypothetically correct jury charge. Adi v. State, 94 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref'd). We are constitutionally empowered to review the judgment of the trial court to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence used to establish the elements of the charged offense. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 6. In determining the factual sufficiency of the elements of the offense, we view all the evidence neutrally, not through the prism of "the light most favorable to the prosecution." Id. at 6-7 (citing Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). We set aside a finding of guilt only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Id. at 7. A clearly wrong and unjust finding of guilt is "manifestly unjust," "shocks the conscience," or "clearly demonstrates bias." Rojas v. State, 986 S.W.2d 241, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
In conducting a factual-sufficiency review, we review the fact finder's weighing of the evidence. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7 (citing Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 133). We review the evidence that tends to prove a material disputed fact and compare it with evidence that tends to disprove it. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7. We are authorized to disagree with the fact finder's determination. Id. However, we approach a factual-sufficiency review with appropriate deference to avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder. Id. Our evaluation should not intrude substantially on the fact finder's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony. Id.
We always remain aware of the fact finder's role and unique position, a position we are unable to occupy. Id. at 9. Exercise of our authority to disagree with the fact finder's determination is appropriate only when the record clearly indicates our intervention is necessary to stop manifest injustice. Id. Otherwise, we accord due deference to the fact finder's determinations, particularly those concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id.
Every fact need not point directly and independently to the accused's guilt. Vanderbilt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A finding of guilt can rest on the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. Id. We reverse a judgment of conviction only if proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the fact finder's determination, or proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 97. Which standard applies generally depends on whether the complaining party had the burden of proof at trial. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). If the accused did not have the burden of proof at trial, then the first or "manifestly unjust" standard applies. Id. If the accused had the burden of proof at trial, then the second or "against the great weight and preponderance" standard applies. Id.
In conducting a factual-sufficiency review in an opinion, we "show our work" when we consider and address the appellant's main argument for urging insufficiency of the evidence. Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9; Manning v. State, 112 S.W.3d 740, 747 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet. h.); see Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. This practice benefits the parties, maintains the integrity of the justice system, and improves appellate practice. Sims, 99 S.W.3d at 603; Manning, 112 S.W.3d at 747. If we reverse a criminal case for factual insufficiency, we vacate the judgment of conviction. Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 133-34. We remand for a new trial a criminal case reversed for factual insufficiency, so a second fact finder has the chance to evaluate the evidence. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 97.
b. Sufficiency Analysis
(1) Legal Sufficiency
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and measuring it against a hypothetically correct jury charge, we find that the arresting officer testified to each of the elements of the offense of assault of a public servant. Gearhart struck the uniformed officer while the officer was in the process of detaining him in response to a public-disturbance complaint. Gearhart's assault bruised the officer and chipped his tooth. The convenience store clerk corroborated the officer's testimony. Gearhart stipulated in open court, in the presence of counsel, to the prior felony conviction, also for assault on a public servant. Viewing the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime, including the repeat felony offender allegation. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; see also Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7.
(2) Factual Sufficiency
We view all the evidence neutrally, favoring neither the State nor Gearhart, and measure it against a hypothetically correct jury charge. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 6-7; Adi, 94 S.W.3d at 131. In addition to the arresting officer and convenience store clerk's testimony, Gearhart testified in his own defense. He admitted he had been drinking and had gotten into a disagreement with the clerk about getting free matches from the store. He admitted he had marijuana in his pocket. He denied assaulting the officer, however. Rather, he said the officer who testified and a second officer assaulted him without provocation. Finally, Gearhart admitted he had been convicted before for assaulting a public servant, although he stressed that the public servant he assaulted that time was a corrections officer, not a police officer. Viewing the relevant evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither the prosecution nor Gearhart, and with appropriate deference to the jury's credibility determinations, we conclude that the jury's verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Id. at 6-7.
Accordingly, we find no arguable legal or factual insufficiency of the evidence. 6. The Charge
Gearhart did not object to the charge. Thus, to be reversible, any error would have to constitute egregious harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157,171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). We find no arguable egregious error in the charge. 7. Closing Argument
Neither party objected to the other's closing argument. Thus, Gearhart waived any error. See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Limas, 941 S.W.2d at 203. We find no arguable error in the prosecutor's jury argument.
8. Punishment Phase
The record shows that Gearhart stipulated to the prior felony assault of a public servant in the culpability phase of the trial, which evidence supported his enhanced punishment as a repeat felony offender. To preserve any error in the punishment phase, Gearhart must have made a timely, specific objection, at the earliest opportunity, and obtained an adverse ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Gearhart did not object at sentencing on any basis. We find that he waived any challenge to the sentence imposed by the jury. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Moreover, the sentence assessed was within the statutorily permissible range and was based on admissible evidence introduced during the trial. See Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). We find no arguable error in the sentencing proceedings.
9. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The record contains no evidentiary support for Gearhart's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. When the alleged ineffectiveness asserted by a defendant occurs outside of the record, the proper vehicle for a complaint is a collateral attack that permits the development of facts concerning the alleged errors of counsel. Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
Accordingly, our independent review of the record finds that Gearhart's appeal is frivolous. We conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80; see also Martin v. State, No. 13-02-118-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 10181, at *3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Dec. 4, 2003, no pet. h.). We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
D. Motion to Withdraw
An appellate court may grant counsel's motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). Substitute appellate counsel in this case has not requested to withdraw from further representation of Gearhart on appeal. We hereby order counsel to advise Gearhart promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We further order counsel to file any motion to withdraw as court-appointed counsel with this Court within ten days of the date of this opinion. See Martin, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 10181, at *4.
ERRLINDA CASTILLO
Justice
Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 11th day of December 2003.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Kenedeno's Texas Monthly: Karl Rove, Never Dreams of Being The President; Working "Under The Radar" Is Much More Satisfying.
Kenedeno's Texas Monthly: Karl Rove, Never Dreams of Being The President; Working "Under The Radar" Is Much More Satisfying.
Karl Rove Likes What He Sees
With his new gig at Fox and a seven-figure political memoir in the works, Karl Rove has officially crossed over from shadowy 'Wizard of Oz' territory to somewhat approachable public personality. But as Lisa DePaulo finds out, that doesn't mean he's any less…pointed with his opinions
Photograph by Gillian Laub
i can see karl rove standing outside the restaurant, on the phone, yakking, pacing, occasionally peering at me through the etched-glass window and sticking a stubby finger in the air to indicate that he'll just be just one more minute. Eighteen minutes pass. He enters brusquely, with apologies and a crack about my "bright red purse" but also with the clear message that he is in control. Uncomfortable in this position, somewhat wary, constantly checking his watch ("Gotta go soon… Gotta go… Couple more minutes…"), not diggin' it, but always in control. Karl Rove is not a guy who kicks back with a drink—even coffee's a stretch ("I'm a decaf guy," he says)—and shoots the shit for a few hours. This isn't about a charm offensive—he gives the impression that he's not even sure why he's doing this. But: To be with Rove is to listen to a man who is utterly articulate and insightful and at the same time utterly…what's the word? Plain? Normal? Caucasian? If you didn't know he used to be Bush's Brain, if you didn't know he is widely credited/blamed with leading the Republican Party to an era of total world domination, if you didn't recognize him (as numerous gawkers inside the Muse hotel restaurant do) as the man W. famously dubbed "Turd Blossom," you'd think he was a middle-management sales lackey in town to sell Ginsu knives or something. The nondescript gray suit and overcoat, the geeky glasses and bald-on-the-top-with-peach-fuzz do, the briefcase (in middle school, he was the only kid with a briefcase, which pretty much sums it up). In what ways is he cool? We can't help but ask. "None," he says. "I am the antithesis of cool." We should also point out that Rove is exceedingly polite and well-mannered and, at moments, as prickly as the little cactuses on his tie. He has the demeanor of a man who had more power than he'll ever admit but is never really far from the 9-year-old who once got into a schoolyard fight over Richard Nixon, and lost. To a girl.
karl rove: Sorry to be late. I have a lunch with the Big Boss shortly.
gq: The Big Boss?
Mr. Murdoch.
Ah, that big boss. Does that mean you'll be getting more money out of Fox?
No, it doesn't.
Do you like being a TV analyst?
Uh, it's odd. You know, it's weird for me. But it's interesting.
Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced?
I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity.
You also sold a book recently.
I did.
What'd ya get?
A lot.
And you're doing speeches, too, right? I read that you just gave one at Penn—
I like speaking to the college campuses.
And the first question, someone called you a cancer.
Right. Oh, sure.
You must get that all the time.
Uh, I get it some. When I go to campuses. But did you hear what I did? I just let him rant. And when he was finished, he had no question, he just wanted to accuse me of undermining the Constitution and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And I said, "Thanks for your thoughtful rant." And he sat down. And I said, "Now do you feel better about yourself?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, I want you to feel better about yourself." And everybody laughed, and we went on.
But is it hard when people—
No. No. Look, everywhere I go, people say nice things to me. I don't live for that. I appreciate it, and I'm grateful for their kind words, but I don't live for it. And similarly, when people say ugly things? It doesn't affect me. They want their words to affect me. And as a result, I'm not gonna let 'em.
But when people say, "You've created this climate of fear—"
I laugh.
You laugh?
Yeah. I laugh. Sure. How? What, exactly? I'm not apologetic about what this administration has done. It's protecting America. It has won important battles in a war that we as a nation better win or we will leave the future to our kids, a much darker and dangerous future.
What's the biggest misconception about your role in the Bush White House?
That it was all about politics.
If that's the misconception, what's the overlooked truth?
Look, I'm a policy geek. What I've most enjoyed about my job was the substantive policy discussions. Being able to dig in deeply and, you know, learn about something, ask questions, listen to smart people, and form a judgment about something that was from a policy perspective.
When you look back at your career, especially in the Bush administration, what's the worst thing you did?
I'm not gonna be good at answering that.
But is there anything you feel guilty about? Or wish you did differently?
[exasperated laugh] Off the record?
No! Don't go off the record.
Off the record.
Okay, let's look back, to the very beginning of the Karl Rove story, when you got handed the keys [from Bush the father, to deliver to Bush the son] until now. And you look at where the president's approval ratings are today—
Yeah.
What did you do wrong?
Oh, look, I did a lot of things wrong. But the main thing is, we're fighting an important but unpopular war.
You still think it was the right thing to do?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And you know, one of our biggest mistakes was, the first time Harry Reid got up and said, "You lied and you deliberately misled the country," we should have gone back immediately and hit back hard, and we didn't. We let that story line develop. In reality, you go back and look at what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore—I'd be happy to supply you the quotes—what they said about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.
What are you most proud of?
Being part of a group of people I have a great deal of respect and admiration for in service of the country.
If you had to make a bet, can Hillary pull it off?
The odds are long, but improbable things have happened almost every month in this race. She wasn't supposed to win New Hampshire, and she did. So we'll see. You know, she's got a lot of strengths, and he does, too. We got two wellmatched opponents going at each other hammer and tongs. It's fun to watch.
If it's mathematically impossible for either of them to get enough delegates, how will this get resolved?
Somebody can get to a majority, but they're gonna have to get to a majority with superdelegates. Neither of them can win enough delegates to win it on just simply the elected delegates.
So if it comes down to superdelegates, doesn't that become a question of who can be more ruthless?
Well, you know, people will have to decide whether they're going to act as reflectors of the popular vote in their districts or states, or whether they're going to exercise independent judgment. I think this is the big dilemma the Democrats face: Are they going to choose a nominee who essentially is chosen, validated, by a minor aristocracy, by essentially an undemocratic group? Because, look. Does anybody think that Patrick Deval [sic], governor of Massachusetts, and Senator Ted Kennedy are gonna respect the wishes of their home-state crowd and go for Hillary Clinton, who won their state? No.
So how ugly is it gonna get?
Well, I—we don't know. We have geological ages that are gonna pass. It's not that ugly today. The wounds are fresh, but there's plenty of time for them to heal. The question is, will the wounds get deeper and more difficult to heal? We don't know. My gut tells me it happens, but I don't know.
If you could run one of their campaigns, which one would be the dream campaign to run?
Neither one.
Why?
Because I don't believe in what they say.
But just as a strategist, just to get in there and—
Yeah, well, see, for me it's not divorced from who they are and what they're all about and what they would do.
What did you think of the red-phone 3 a.m. ad?
It was a gutsy, dangerous move. She figured out that she had to do something to raise the issue of: Is he fit to be president? And this was a way to do it. I happened to be in Texas a week before the ad popped, and all of her surrogates were hitting him pretty hard on the thinness of his experience. They were pretty brutal. And this ad sort of fed into that.
Isn't that the kind of ad you would have done?
Uh, look, that's the problem. She can't run an ad—you know, the more powerful ads she can't run against him, because she's afraid of looking too moderate. He's got essentially… His argument is twofold. "Vote for me because I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together; we're not red states, blue states, we're the United States." And second of all—and he said this most passionately in the Wisconsin victory speech: "There are big issues facing the country, and it requires leadership and energy to solve them." Well, the two best counters to those are Hillary saying, "I've actually worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done." Or McCain saying, even more pointedly, "On all the big issues where Republicans and Democrats have come together, I've been in the middle of bringing them together, and you've been way out there on the fringe. When we pulled together the Gang of Fourteen, you were out on the fringe. When we pulled together a bipartisan answer on the terrorist-surveillance program, you were way out there on the fringe. When Democrats and Republicans, regardless of where they were on the war, came together to give our troops everything they needed while they were in combat, you were way out there on the fringe." Now, she can do some of that, because she's actually tried to work with Republicans over the years. He has not since he got there. He's been coolly detached and sitting on the side. His fingerprints are on, at most, a couple of small items. And then, on the leadership issue, she can say, "Look, I've been in the middle of these big battles. I've been providing the leadership. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. But at least I've been involved." And McCain will be able to sharpen that even more.
It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic?
I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions.
Do you think Obama would be easier to beat?
I try not to think about those things. Because that inevitably leads you to believe, I would like to have A or I would like to have B. You need to keep your mind open about both of them.
You've said—what was the phrase you used about Hillary? "Fatally flawed"?
Fatally flawed. I just thought her flaws would show up in the general election. I didn't know they'd show up as early and as strong as they have.
Which flaws?
Uh, calculating. You know, she went through the period where she had the calculated laugh, she went through the period where she had the calculated accents, and you build that on top of a person who already has the reputation that anything she says is calculating, you know…
Is calculating a terrible thing?
It is if people think it's phony. And that's what her problem is. That and the sense of entitlement. You know, the sense of "This is mine, I deserve it; we're the Clintons, this is ours." And I think that really caused a lot of people to say, "You know what? It's not yours." And do we really want to go back? The '90s were nice in a lot of respects, but do we really want to go back to all that drama?
There is something ironic about Karl Rove criticizing someone for being calculating.
Right. Look, it's one thing to calculate and say, "What's the best way for me to do this?" It's another thing to say, "What's the best way to do this, even if it means the sacrifice of my fundamental principles?" When she stood up there and said, "I'm in front of an African-American group in Alabama, so let me adopt a phony southern accent!" And when she sat there and said, "You know what? I need to warm myself up, so for the next weeklong period I'm gonna sit there and laugh and cackle at anything that is even remotely funny." You know, when both she and he, who are free traders by instinct, went to Ohio and said, "We're gonna renegotiate NAFTA," when they know that (a) there's no provision to renegotiate NAFTA, and (b) the Canadians and the Mexicans are not gonna want to renegotiate NAFTA, and (c) when both of them understand that trade liberalization, particularly with our neighbors, has been to our economic advantage, who are they kidding?
But when people call you calculating, do you take that as a compliment?
Look, what I'm charged with is, in politics, taking the material that I have to work with—which are the views and values, convictions and principles, of my candidate or client—and charting the best path to victory. That's different than saying, "How am I gonna take a fundamental belief or a reality of me as an individual and discard it?"
So there's good calculating and bad calculating?
Absolutely.
If Hillary pulls it out, will Mark Penn [her chief strategist] be considered a genius?
Mark Penn is a very smart guy regardless of whether or not she pulls it out. He's a very smart guy.
But don't you think there've been a lot of mistakes?
Sure. But if you have to lay them at the feet of one person, you lay them at the feet of the candidate. The candidate sets the tone.
Are you surprised at how Obama exploded?
You know, I want to be careful—I think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"—the Republicans who support Obama.
You don't buy that?
No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it's nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it's three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why. There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did—
You're not wearing a flag pin, Karl.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on.
Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?
Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.
So the Dems have two rattled candidates?
Right. Now, you got one candidate who's got an appeal to the blue-collar Democrats: Clinton. I call them the beer drinkers. And then you got the white-wine crowd, which Obama appeals to. There's a brilliant article by Ron Brownstein in the latest issue of National Journal in which he charts the change in the nature of the Democrat-primary vote, and it's becoming younger, more affluent, and more liberal. And that means that blue-collar Democrats, whatever's left of them, are on their way out of the Democratic Party.
What do you make of this whole thing where Hillary was talking him up as a vice president and he came back saying, "Wait a minute, I'm winning—why are you asking me to be your number two?"
Very calculating on the part of the Clintons, and a mistake for him on his part.
Why?
Because they wanted him to get down to their level. They want him to look like, you know, not the golden inspiring figure but instead, you know, like an average ordinary pol who's got three years in the United States Senate. So they lay it out there. And rather than having it be dismissed by a surrogate, instead he goes out there! And rather than having an inspiring, forward-looking message, instead he's out there as an ordinary pol saying, "Hey, I'm number one, I'm in first place! I won more states than she did. I won more delegates than she did. What the hell's she doing offering it to me? That's insulting." And he did it in an arrogant way that I don't think made him look that good.
So you don't think his response played well?
No. Take a look at the footage. Turn the sound off and look at it. You can tell that he is arrogant, and you can tell that he's a little bit angry, and you can tell he's very dismissive. He takes his hands and he sort of, you know, waves his hand like, "I'm dismissing something." That was the moment to say, you know, "Look, I know what my opponents are saying, but you know what? I'm focused on one thing and one thing only, which is to help bring Republicans and Democrats and independents together to move America forward." Instead of "Hey, lemme just remind you, I'm winning! I'm beatin' her!"
So he took the bait?
He took the bait.
Have you gotten to know Hillary or Barack to any degree?
Yes, I have.
What have been your dealings with them?
Well, you know, I used to have her office at the White House. And I got to know [Obama] because we have a mutual friend, Ken Mehlman, who was his law-school classmate at Harvard. And so as a result, whenever in the last three years he's been around at the White House, I've gotten to see him, and we sort of would hang around and chitchat about things. I'm actually in his book. He wrote that "people like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, and Karl Rove say we are a Christian nation." And I did not say that. I confronted him about it. At the White House.
And what did he say?
Well, first he denied that I was in the book! And then he denied that it said that I said that it was a Christian nation. And then when I pulled out the thing [he had a copy of the offensive page with him] and showed it to him, he sort of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah- blah-blah. And I thought, That's who he is. I mean, look, he may claim that he's for a different kind of politics, but that was a cheap shot. And I'm not certain if any of the four said it either. But it was like, you know, Let's just strap it in there and see if it goes someplace. Another example: Him saying, "We honor John McCain for his fifty years of service" was a cheap shot. He was going out of his way to say John McCain's old.
Is John McCain too old?
No.
Do you think Obama's gotten a free ride from the press?
Yes.
How so?
I don't think they hold him to the same standards. You know, look, his Web site is full of all kinds of proposals written by academics galore. But he's not required to defend them. He's not required to explain what it is he wants to do. Now I think that's changing. I think, when you have an editorial in USA Today that says, in essence, Where's the beef, what's the substance? When reporters start asking him tough questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko—you know, what was the value of the lot? What was the price that you paid? How many fund-raisers did he do for you? How much money did he raise at those fund-raisers? When they start asking him those questions, then it starts to change. I mean, the kind of questions that have been routinely asked of other candidates—about their background and associations and involvements—have only recently begun to be asked of him.
I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama.
Off the record?
Please don't go off the record.
Off the record… [Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]
Damn! Now say that on the record.
No. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Let's try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him.
Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uh—she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has.
Let's talk about Bill. You've gotten to know him better, right?
Yeah.
What do you think of him now?
He's a very entertaining rogue. He's a larger-than-life character. You can't help but sort of like him. But boy, he has made some missteps in this campaign.
Yeah, what's up with that? He's supposed to be this political genius. What's going on?
He's all wrapped up in it. He's lost his detachment. Sometimes you can be more detached about yourself than you can be about members of your family. He's all revved up about her and making mistakes.
Do you buy any of the pop psychology that there's a part of him that's sabotaging her?
I—I—that is way beyond. I have never… I don't have a couch that anybody could sit down on, and… I don't know, I don't know.
But you were surprised to see how he handled the South Carolina thing?
Well, it may have been calculated, I don't know. Maybe they made a calculated decision that, Hey, we need to send a message that all he can do is win states with African-American voters. But I don't think it played—even among Democrats.
Recently, in a meeting with some people from the Republican National Committee, you said, "Do not use 'Barack Hussein Obama.' "
Right, right. Um, in politics—
Is that because it's not right?
It's wrong. But not only that, it's counterproductive. In politics, there are arguments that are seen as not factual and not fair, or trivial, and they blow up in your face. And this is one that people look at and say, "You're trying to imply something about him that's not true. I think you're going a bridge too far, and I'm reacting negatively." I mean, he didn't pick his middle name, somebody else did. And he doesn't go out of his way, like Hillary Rodham Clinton to, you know, emphasize it.
You probably never thought, eight years ago, that John McCain would be the nominee.
You know what? In politics, second acts are either really bad or really good. And so the question was gonna be, Who might want to succeed Bush? McCain was always a possibility. He's always harbored a desire.
What do you think of him now?
I like him. We bonded in the '04 campaign.
Do you have to hold your nose to vote for him?
No, no, not at all. I enthusiastically voted for him. I just sent in my absentee ballot [in Texas], and I gave him $2,300.
So what's your life like now, Karl? Are you based in Washington still?
We're splitting our time between Washington and a place we have in the panhandle in Florida. And a little place in Texas. We're looking to be in Texas more permanently starting this fall. We've enjoyed Washington, but look, I don't wanna be like… I got a guy, lives around the corner from us in Washington, who had a prominent role for six months in the Reagan administration, and he's still living off of it twenty-some-odd years later. I don't intend to do that.
What do you intend to do?
I'm trying to figure that out. I've got a couple years between the book and the speeches and Fox and my Newsweek column and my writing for the Wall Street Journal and some things I'm doing in politics under the radar.
What do you do for kicks?
I read and go hunting. And travel with my wife.
Tell us about your wife.
She's a terrific, courageous person.
Is it hard being married to you?
Uh, I don't think it's hard being married to me. I think it's hard being married in public with me.
Let's talk about the last couple of scandals you've been involved in. Don Siegelman in Alabama [the Democratic governor whom Rove was recently accused of trying to sabotage by forcing U.S. attorneys to bring corruption charges against him prior to an election]. What happened?
[rolls his eyes] Will you do me a favor and go on Power Line and Google "Dana Jill Simpson" [the Republican lawyer who told 60 Minutes that Rove asked her to take a picture of Governor Siegelman cheating on his wife]? She's a complete lunatic. I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her. And what the media has done on this… No one has read the 143-page deposition that she gave congressional investigators—143 pages. When she shows up to give her explanation of all this, do you know how many times my name appears? Zero times. Nobody checked!
Then how did this happen?
Because CBS is a shoddy operation. They said, "Hey, if we can say 'Karl Rove,' 'Siegelman,' that'll be good for ratings. Let's hype it. We'll put out a news release on Thursday and then promo the hell out of it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." And Scott Pelley—the question is, Did [60 Minutes correspondent] Scott Pelley say to this woman, "You say you met with him. Where? And you say that he gave you other assignments earlier. When did he begin giving you assignments, and what campaigns did you work with him in? What evidence? I mean, this woman, she said she met with him: Okay, you met with him—where? Did you fly to Washington?" Now she says that she talked to me on the phone and she's got phone records. Of calls to Washington and Virginia. But what's Virginia? I don't live in Virginia. And it's 2001. What is in Virginia? It's not the Bush headquarters; that was in Austin, Texas. What is in Virginia? So—but look, she's a loon.
What about the U.S. attorneys? Should you have had a role in hiring and firing?
[a little peeved now] What was my role in firing those U.S. attorneys?
Your position has been—and tell me if I have this wrong—that you basically relayed complaints?
To the counsel's office. Correct.
And that was an appropriate thing to do?
Oh sure. Sure it is. Sure it is.
What's your relationship with the president now?
Good. Really good.
Do you talk a lot?
Yeah.
Did you know that Laura called you Pigpen?
Yeah. [laughs] Laura Bush intimidates me. All the Bushes—well, most of the Bush men marry incredibly strong women, and they all intimidate me. Barbara Bush I've lived in fear of for thirty-seven years.
What's your goal with this book? You intend to set the record straight, as you see it?
Absolutely, absolutely. Sure. You bet. I intend to set the record straight.
I imagine you're going to have a lot to say.
Yeah, exactly. Available soon for $29.95…. I gotta go! I gotta go!
Wait, quickly: Do you believe Roger Clemens?
Um, yes, I do.
If he gets nailed on perjury charges, is that the kind of guy Bush might pardon?
I'm sorry?
Do you think if he got nailed, that would be the type of person Bush would pardon?
I'm not gonna answer that. I mean, he's done nothing wrong.
Should Scooter Libby be pardoned?
I'm not gonna answer that. Just not. Just not. But thanks for asking.
lisa depaulo is a GQ correspondent.
April 02, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Nueces De La Parra: Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez
Nueces De La Parra: Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez:
"These are not Democrat issues. These are not Republican issues ... It's Too Late To Apologize. Unlike yous guys, We Dont Work for the President. On Jan 12, 2008 6:18 PM, Jaime Kenedeño wrote: Everybody welcome, the more the merrier. themericanprince, onamission, Homero, Nuts101, ... The Genuine Article: Nueces De La Parra http://stxc.blogspot.com/2006/04/just-another-day-in-nueces-county.html. posted by dannoynted1 @ 12:39:00 AM ... Contributors. dannoynted1; Jaime Kenedeño ... laparra.blogspot.com/2006/04/sexual-harrasment-del-mar-and-now.html - 29k ... Nueces County Jail Delayed KENEDENO & ASSOCIATES. We at Kenedeno & Associates apologize if this Documentary Dossier' offends. We certainly encourage anyone who disputes or challenges anything written in this Article to rebut / respond. The Links contain more in ... HOWARD STERN APOLOGIZED TO SOUTH TEXAS Caller.co...
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez
Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez
Jaime Kenedeno - 11:40pm Oct 10, 2005 Central
Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez
Democrats are not behind Shamsie! There is only certain clique of Democrats who want to “Strong Arm” Shamsie back into the Nueces Constitutional County Court! This “clique” (or group of “Cronies”) I will refer to as the “Shamsie Clique” or “Shamsie Cronies”. It is my understanding, Shamsie’s support stems from the Office of Congressman Solomon Ortiz and certain other witnesses to the “Capelo Deal”. Attorney Shamsie (along with George Finley {Nueces County Hospital District}) witnessed the transaction between Attorney & State Representative Jaime Capelo and Attorney Rene Rodriguez.. Capelo represented Citgo at the time and Rodriguez was in dispute with Corpus Christi Police Officers Association! (Laredo National Bank VP) Roland Guerra had to break the bad news to Capelo and then he was thrown to the dogs! Why was Shamsie never deposed? Why not Finley (deposed)? Tony “The Two Fer” was mad at Rodriguez and Capelo! What about Hugo Berlanga grooming Capelo for the JOB? I seem to remember some kind of criminal charges filed on Hugo Berlanga and his backroom politics! Now Capelo and Berlanga are both better off! They are both successful lobbyists in Austin! Then we go to the Medical Legislation! Who was it good for? Was “The Two Fer” Pro or Con with the proposition authored by Joe Nixon? The Doctor’s Malpractice insurance increased! Who made out on this deal?
Now back to the “Shamsie Cronies” it is rumored and warnings have been issued! The media is being “Strong Armed” financially! Elite and Power Brokers (Powercrats) within the Democratic Party are frowning on the media who promote any other option for the Democratic primary and certainly to support an independent will bring the wrath of both Parties! They are in essence saying, “we are going to use our Incumbent resources to discourage (SQUEEZE) clients from working with your business’ if you (the Media) speak negatively of Shamsie! Even if it is
Tejano2K - 02:50pm Oct 11, 2005 Central (#1 of 10)
As we know;There's always two sides to every story,hope somebody will tell it because anyone can write just about anything about anybody.Sould we be rooting for 'Shamsie'?
GRusling - 08:16am Oct 22, 2005 Central (#2 of 10) If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
This is all political doubletalk. It appears meaningless because it is...
Jaime Kenedeno - 06:17pm Oct 22, 2005 Central (#3 of 10)
GR: "This is all political doubletalk. It appears meaningless because it is..."
Explain? Verify your statement Please?
GRusling - 10:49pm Oct 23, 2005 Central (#4 of 10) If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
Politicians are all crooks, endit.
The "pot" is calling the "kettle" BLACK again!
All concerned are up to their eyeballs in gutter-slime...
Jaime Kenedeno - 11:52pm Oct 23, 2005 Central (#5 of 10)
GR: I agree with you. Do you have any suggestions for a Candidate with integrity for Nueces County Judge. Suggestions for a nomination?
GRusling - 06:40am Oct 24, 2005 Central (#6 of 10) If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
I don't live in Nueces County, thankfully...
Jaime Kenedeno - 07:04am Oct 24, 2005 Central (#7 of 10)
Then Theoretically speaking. Who do you beleive to be the man or woman for the JOB?
GRusling - 08:30am Oct 26, 2005 Central (#8 of 10) If voting could really change things, it would be illegal...
I have no idea. Nueces County politics are a peripheral issue for me. I rarely comment except when it's "pure" politics with little or no substance...
John DeLaGarza - 07:06pm Nov 17, 2005 Central (#9 of 10)
I dont know much about the Democrat Party locally or otherwise or the Republican Party for that matter, but I definately do not like Shamsie. IMO there is definately something Shady about him.
There has got to be a better Democrat for the job than him, either way I'll vote against him whenever he is up for reelection.
John DeLaGarza - 09:22pm Dec 8, 2005 Central (#10 of 10)
Good news Shamsie isnt going to run for reelection.
2 comments:
Links to this post
Saturday, April 05, 2008
‘I will see all 79 of you at 1:30 p.m.’
BEWARE OF JUDGE SANDRA WATTS! 117 DISTRICT COURT.
To be honest, I didn’t want to use this site for personal stuff. But I have worked with so many homeless guys and ex cons who have told me time and again how they have been really harassed by the cops and stuff. I just bought a $70.00 dollar tent for some homeless family. They were so grateful to get it. They had it set up and it was beautiful. The cops came and cut it to shreds. I felt I needed to have a section that deals with stuff like this.
I pray weekly for those in authority. I pray for those who are believers, unbelievers and those who are actively doing wrong [like the guy in Iran!]. I basically ask the Lord to strengthen righteous authority, to also rule in the hearts of those who are in authority but are unrighteous. I must admit, as I have debated posting this entry, I feel that judge Watts is actually one of the righteous ones I regularly pray for! I believe she is a believer! I sensed this as I prayed, plus she did make certain statements the day I was in her court that lead me to believe she is a believer. Before posting this entry I did email her office and told her that according to the admonition in Corinthians I am asking for her to simply acknowledge a wrongdoing that took place under her authority. She never got back with me [as of this posting].
HOW JUDGE SANDRA WATTS HAD ME ARRESTED AND HER BAILIFF LIED ABOUT ME IN COURT!
(1) I am trying to be fair about this, but I must tell this story! I went to jury duty a few days ago. About a week before I had taken custody of a boy whose mom is a friend of my wife. Someone reported her to Child Protective Services and she was going to loose her kid, so we took custody for a while. Well when I went to jury duty I asked one of the Nueces county deputies, as well as the lady doing jury duty, who I should talk to about getting out of jury duty. I told them the situation with the boy and how I had to get him at the school bus and all. I was informed, BY THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE COURTHOUSE, to go thru the process of being put on the jury pool and when you go upstairs to the judge you hold your jury card up and they will talk to you. So I waited for a few hours and got on a jury pool and finally went upstairs to the courtroom. The judge was Sandra Watts. It was now around 11:00 am. I got to the courthouse at 7:50 am and have been asking all along what the proper procedure was to get excused. Now I hold my juror card up, I am the only one out of the 80 jurors in my pool that did this. The court bailiff approaches and I tell him the situation about C.P.S. placing a kid in our care. He asks ‘what time do you need to get home’ I told him the bus comes around 3. He says ‘no problem, wait a little and you will get excused’. So we go thru the polling process for around 2 hours. The judge actually said ‘we now have 79 jurors [as opposed to 80, the original number]’ she said this right after the bailiff spoke with me. Well I of course assumed she meant I was the 1 out of the 80 that was released. She actually seemed perturbed that I had an excuse, but it was really legitimate. So at around 12:30- 1:00 p.m. she releases for lunch and says ‘I will see all 79 of you at 1:30p.m.’ I took this to mean I won’t be coming back! These were the directives I received thru out the day. Go upstairs, hold your card, etc. So I go home and right when the school bus is dropping off the boy the Sheriffs dept. comes with a warrant. My wife says ‘the S.O. wants you’? I was mad! They tell me judge Watts has a warrant on you. I told them I was released by her! The poor Sheriffs guy was scared. They sent a woman and a guy. He was like ‘we don’t want any problems’ I told him ‘Oh, That’s too late brother, we are gonna have problems. You come to my house with a warrant. You threaten to handcuff me. We have big problems’! I tell them ‘I will take my truck’ they said no way. I told them ‘how will I get back’ they said ‘we will take you home’. [First lie of the day!] Well at the courthouse you could tell that the Sheriffs guys must have said ‘this guys mad’ as we went upstairs the judge says to the deputies for me to wait in the hall until the trials over. So I requested a court appointed lawyer. They were telling me ‘O, don’t worry. All you need to do is go in and apologize and she might let you go’ I told them ‘you don’t understand, I think the fact that you picked me up under false pretense and have me handcuffed and brought to court is you’re liability, not mine’! After requesting a lawyer they finally bring one up. I asked at least 15 times for representation and was refused, before they finally gave me a lawyer! I know the judge must have been furious that I made them appoint me a lawyer. They wanted to play the game of ‘you cry for mercy and we let you go’. After a few hours I go in to the judge. She berates me for a few minutes and then I explain how I followed all the directives given to me thru out the day. The fact that your own courthouse employees have miss communicated the process, should under no circumstances have led to the handcuffing and restraining of a citizen and also denying him the right to counsel. I told her that she stated ‘we have 79 jurors who will come back’ seemed to say I shouldn’t come back. She admitted so much, but I don’t know how she explained this away? The bailiff actually lied in court. The poor kid [30 yrs old?] was asked ‘did you tell him this or that’ and he lied and said ‘I told him to be back at 1:30’. He did lie thru his teeth! He didn’t know we were going to be released at 12:30 for an hour break when he spoke to me at 11:00am. The defense lawyer thought we would break at 12:00, but the judge said continue and we did. This guy lied! So after all this, the judge gives me contempt of court and I have to pay a 100 dollar fine. I find it amazing that I showed up for jury duty as a citizen, wound up getting handcuffed and lied about in Sandra Watts court, berated and fined. And when it was time to leave they tell the judge ‘he was told he would get a ride home’ I don’t know her reply, but after everyone left I asked the sheriffs guys ‘where’s my ride’ they just walked away!
Today is the next day. As I was debating whether or not to go ahead and post this article, I went to pay my 100 dollar fine. Yesterday, when I was told ‘pay the fine’ I specifically asked where to pay it. I was told ‘just ask the deputies on the first floor’. I knew this was trouble. These are the same guys who lied about getting a ride home after they said ‘we will ride you home’. [They work for the same law enforcement agencies] Now, I have worked with law enforcement for 25 years. I know the games. Sure enough, as I walked in to the Nueces courthouse I asked the deputies where to pay the fine. The guy recognized me for sure, he let me know. He says ‘go to the 2nd floor and go to the corner office’ well I go to where he said. They direct me to another office. I go there and they direct me to the 3rd spot. You guessed it, I go to office 3 [all on floor 2] and they send me to floor 3. I go to floor 3 and they send me to floor 4. I told the lady at floor 4, after she was directing me to floor 5, that this is enough. What kind of court system holds it citizens to 100 percent perfection ‘you better pay the fine’ and then is specifically not told where to pay it. This is the same courthouse that had its bailiff lie to my face in court! I told the lady ‘you need to accept this bill’ she was not going to give me a receipt until I requested one. I told her I need to speak with someone about this entire situation. They give me a number and the person suggests to drop the matter. I am not sure who the person was. As he is trying to convince me to forget it, I explain I have worked with this system for many years, there has been real wrongdoing these past few days, who do I report it to? He says ‘I am not a lawyer, I really don’t know anything about it’. Then why was he the person I was directed to talk to? If this Nueces courthouse, and judge Watts court are this unbelievably incompetent, how in the world does the average citizen who doesn’t have a web site even begin to deal with it? I felt like I needed to post this entry for the sheer sake of freedom of the press. Without a doubt there have been real wrongdoings at this courthouse in these past few days.
NOTE; IT IS NO SMALL THING FOR A CITIZEN TO STAND BEFORE A JUDGE AND FOR HER OWN BAILIFF TO GIVE ABSOLUTE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOU AND FOR YOU TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH UNDER OATH AND THEN BE DEEMED AS LYING. THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF CORRUPTION. FOR THE 117TH DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE ACTED UNJUSTLY IS AN EXTREME VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF LAW!
DAY 3- As I am still waiting for resolution in this case, I wanted to mention a few more things. During this whole scenario I saw how from the point of being picked up and hauled into court, to the time when the bailiff actually gave false testimony about me. The way this situation was handled was one of complete and total disrespect for the citizen. When you are dealing with a citizen, not the actual murder defendant [this was a murder case] you do not tell him ‘you will not need a lawyer’ when he actually requests one of the court! You do not threaten him with ‘unless you lower your voice she will put you in the holding cell overnight’. My voice was raised because of the abusive treatment and contempt from those who actually followed me into my bedroom while getting changed to go to the courthouse! For a citizen to wake up one morning and go to jury duty, to try as best as possible to comply with all the directives given, which by the way one of them was ‘at no time will you personally speak to me, all correspondence will go thru my bailiff’ [judge Watts] then for me to be told by judge Watts ‘the bailiff cant release you, the law states I alone must tell you’ seems a contradiction. Plus I am an average citizen walking in off the street. I know ignorance is no excuse, but you can’t hold a citizen to a standard that he is not aware of. Or at least you try to clarify as much as possible what his requirements will be thru out the day. Any person could have interpreted the events that happened to me as thinking ‘she released me’. This wasn’t some blatant disregard for law, as judge Watts claimed as she berated me as an irresponsible citizen who if it weren’t for the graciousness of the lawyers this case could have been damaged by me. The total and complete disdain from her and her representatives was completely wrong. Now I felt the tide turn at one point. After humiliating me with a long speech, after being initially told ‘you don’t need a lawyer’ after being lied about right in the court by an officer of the court! I asked if I could speak. She says ‘go ahead’. I kinda felt like Paul [apostle] who gave his defense in Acts. I went thru the whole process of me showing up in the morning to court. Trying to honestly follow all the directives given to me thru out the day. And then wind up getting arrested, handcuffed and treated like an imbecile by the system. I informed her that her bailiff was lying right then and there. I was the only one under oath. She put me under, but not the bailiff. If he was already under then he flatly lied under oath! I then told her ‘this morning you gave quite a dissertation on the origins of natural and moral law, but in order for that law to work, the people involved must speak the truth’. You could see on her face that she was a little surprised that this citizen who they attempted to intimidate time and again actually wasn’t a complete idiot! I could tell that she began to regret the fact that they picked me as the one to ‘make an example out of’. So after emailing this letter to all the city, county council members. To the state and local representatives. To the mayor and County judge. To Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn [I do get carried away sometimes] and last but not least to the state attorney generals office! I will wait and see what happens. But in all seriousness [I did send it to them!] I feel the system often deals with its citizens thru intimidation. Did the bailiff begin his day thinking ‘today I will put my job at risk and perjure myself in court’? No. But he made the mistake of lying in court, at my expense, to think it would give him job protection. A big mistake. Did the officers who told me ‘you won’t need a lawyer’ realize that this one statement is violating the rights of a U.S. citizen? No. but the system took a simple miscommunication of events, by their own people [bailiff and others thru out the day] and raised it into an example of ‘let’s get this guy’. But they picked ‘the wrong guy’.
UPDATE- Let me do a little clinic on unjust govt. First, I am positive it took a brief investigation by the county to realize the poor bailiff lied in court. He only spoke to me once, at 11:00 am, and he in no way would have been able to say ‘return at 1:30 p.m.’ he didn’t know we were breaking for lunch at 12:30 when he spoke to me. It is obvious that he lied. Now this was the basis for arresting me and finding me in contempt of court. But I want to show you the posture that the county has taken. I worked for the city of Kingsville for 25 years. When a city does wrong [incurs liability] the usual posture is ‘don’t admit, respond or have any correspondence with the plaintiff’. So even though the county must know for a fact that they have committed an offense, they will not only deny it, but will actually not even give the common courtesy of even contacting the citizen. I have been contacted by the United States senator of Texas, but no local officials. Now you begin to see unjust govt. at work. This entity, Nueces County, had me in court and fined me for ‘contempt’. In essence ‘your are an individual of low moral turpitude’. After realizing that they were of lower moral turpitude, one of their officers lying in court and giving false testimony, instead of being ‘moral’ their posture has now become ‘lets see if this guy really has the means to sue us. After all no attorney would take a case where he doesn’t think he will get money’. So the entity that judged the citizen of ‘low morality’ has now become the entity that postures itself by saying ‘he can’t really get us’. This my friend is ‘contempt of a U.S. citizen’. Are any of you local officials who have been getting these emails going to respond to a complaint from a citizen? I have been asking you to address a concern, I have no intent of suing or doing anything along those lines. I want you guys to act righteously. [Thanks to Loyd Neal, Sheriff Kaelin and the Police Chief for contacting me. You guys are honorable!]
John Chiarello Director of Corpus Christi Outreach Ministries
P.O. box 181256 C.C. TX. 78480
www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com
johnchiarello@hotmail.com
(2) Over the years I have seen how the legal system has humans working in it. People make mistakes. I have had friends who were jailers [when I used to preach in the county jails] who the prisoners respected. But there were many instances where a jailer was a ‘jerk’. He was one of those people who would be a bully at school. Derive enjoyment from using his authority to get on peoples nerves. How many times have I as a firefighter been upset because we got another ‘Anthrax call’. Some citizen saw sugar on a store floor, it must be Anthrax! I have a homeless friend who is an absolute outstanding Christian. He teaches Sunday school. Is an ordained deacon and is very intelligent. If you look at him he looks like a little scraggly. Full beard, does live on the streets. But to judge him by his looks would be a huge mistake. The cops often see him sitting. They tell him ‘get up and move’. He politely walks around until he’s tired. Sits again ‘get up and move’. This night the cop is an idiot! Does he have the right to do this? No. But he has the vested authority to get away with it. In the Sandra Watts case, the woman should have discerned ‘this guy really was miss communicated to thru out the day. Even though I am incensed at him for thinking he blatantly disregarded the law. Now that he has explained in a reasonable fashion what happened, I will rebuke him and not find him in contempt’. But I believe once I forced the court to provide me with a lawyer, she thought ‘he’s going to pay now’. Is it just for her to do this? No. Does she have the authority to get away with it? Yes. The legal system deals with humans. I think judge Watts is probably a good person. But once you allow your own officer of the court to perjure himself in court by giving false testimony, then you have had your judgment clouded by anger. I realize the anger that my friends have had while dealing with humans in the legal system. Some are good people, others use their authority to get even with people. To say ‘I personally dislike this person. I will rule against him, even if I have to use false testimony to do it’. Maybe Paul was right when he said ‘women should not have authority over men’? I am being sarcastic, don’t want to get all our women readers mad, just Sandra!
Friday, March 14, 2008
INSIDE INFORMATION IS MORE POWERFUL THAN MONEY MY FRIENDS
Thursday, March 13, 2008
THE REAL POLITICAL PULSE: THE POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN LENCHO VERSUS THE EDC
HOW THINGS WORK. LET'S BREAK THIS VERY COMPLEX BEAST OF THE EDC (POWER GROUP A) AND LENCHO (POWER GROUP B) AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN NUECES COUNTY FOR ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND. UNDERSTAND THE PLAYERS AND THE POWERSTRUCTURE. WE NEED TO KNOW THE SET UP AND WHY THINGS HAPPEN HERE IN TOWN.
CONNECTIONS: EDC, HUGO BERLANGA, RUBEN BONILLA.
THE ENEMIES TO EDC: LENCHO RENDON TRYING TO UNDERMINE EDC. LENCHO AND KAELIN REAL CLOSE. WILLIE VADEN AND LENCHO RENDON RUNNING PIPELINE FROM MEXICO TO U.S.
LENCHO THE STAUNCH DEMOCRAT!
WILLIE JUST HIRED HIM IN INGLESIDE. WHAT'S GOING ON? LENCHO IS TRYING TO CONTROL THE PORT. THE PORT COMMISSION IS NEEDED FOR SHAMSIE TO REPLACE ONE OF THE PORT MEMBERS. THE EDC HAS THE MIKE CARROLL ISSUE TO CONTEND WITH. THERE ARE 7 MEMBERS: 4 CONTROLLED EDC AND 3 BY LENCHO AND SOLOMONISTAS. THEY ARE GOING AFTER MONEY, OF COURSE. LENCHO CONTROLLING COUNTY. OSCAR ORTIZ IS PRETTY MUCH COUNTY JUDGE AND SHAMSIE IS STILL PULLING STRINGS ON THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. BUT AS FAR AS THE PORT RUBEN BONILLA, JUDY HOLLY(?), MIKE CARROLL (HEAD OF FROST BANK AND MEMBER OF EDC WAS MOVED OVER TO THE PORT), AND THE ELDERLY ANGLO GENTLEMAN WHO'S NAME ESCAPES ME IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY. AN APPOINTMENT IS PENDING AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. THE CONTROVERSY IS THAT MIKE CARROLL (HENRY GARRETT APPOINTED MIKE CARROLL PRIOR TO THE ELECTION ON THE CITY COUNCIL). EDC FEARED THE BALANCE OF POWER WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED. NOW, THE OTHER PEOPLE OF LENCHO, YOLANDO OLIVAREZ (SOLOMON ORTIZ HELPS HER WITH CONTRACTS), KEN BERRY, BOBBY GONZALEZ. LOOKS LIKE BOBBY GONZALEZ WILL BE REAPPOINTED. YOLANDA WILL LEAVE SO THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT SHAMSIE (HE HAS JUST PUT IN AN APPLICATION). KEEP IN MIND THAT RENE RODRIGUEZ HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION. 
THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT SHAMSIE IS WANTED ON THERE BECAUSE HE IS WITH LENCHO. NOW, OSCAR ORTIZ CONTROLS PEGGY BANALES AND BETTY JEAN. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT YOU HAVE CAZALES AND NEIL. BUT STRANGELY CAZALES HAS BEEN VOTING WITH ORTIZ. MIKE HUMMELL ON THE CITY COUNCIL SIDE IS FRIENDLY WITH LENCHO SO THEY WILL TRY TO GET ANOTHER MEMBER ON THE PORT APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REASON THE PEGGY BANALES RACE WAS SO IMPORTANT WAS TO GET THE PORT. 
NOW, LETS LOOK AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: TERRY CARTER IS RUMORED TO HAVE HIS DAYS NUMBERED ON THERE. EDC CONTROLS PORT NOW BUT LENCHO IS PUSHING TO CONTROL THE PORT. THE MAIN ENGINE THAT CONTROLS THE ECONOMY IS THE PORT SO THAT IS WHY SHAMSIE AND LENCHO COVET IT.
HUERTA CONNECTION: HUERTA IS TIED IN WITH MIKAL WATTS. THEY SIT ON SEVERAL BOARDS THAT THE EDC CONTROLS. MIKAL WATTS IS IN THERE. WHAT REMAINS UNCLEAR IS WHETHER LENCHO HAS ALLIANCES WITH WATTS.
BONILLA CONNECTION: BY RUBEN BONILLA GETTING HALF A MILLION FROM ONE, A QUARTER OF MILLION FOR FEES OF CITY ENTITIES FOR LEGAL FEES (FED TO SHAMSIE AND RENE RODRIGUEZ BACK WHEN TERRY SHAMSIE RAN). THAT IS WHY RUBEN BONILLA AND SHAMSIE NOT ON FRIENDLY TERMS BECAUSE RUBEN WAS RAKING IT IN. WHEN SHAMSIE CAME IN AS COUNTY JUDGE HE WAS IDEALISTIC AND WAS LOOKING AT THE FUNDS AND MONEY. RUBEN BONILLA MAKING OVER A MILLION FOR REPRESENTING SEVERAL ENTITIES.
NOW EDC AND RENDON/SHAMSIE FACTION: BOTH GROUPS ARE EXCLUSIVE.
LENCHO GROUP IS SO CLOSEKNIT. THE GROUP DYNAMICS IS THAT THEY ARE NOT INCLUSIVE. THE CIRCLE IS TIGHT. WHEN HILLARY CAME IT WAS EVIDENT. THEY CONTROLLED THE MEDIA WHICH ANGERED THE MAINSTREAM. IN THE LENCHO CIRCLE MIKE RENDON AND SARAH SALDIVAR (WHO WORKED WITH SOLOMONS DAUGHTER) ARE A PART OF THE GROUP.
THE BROTHER IN LAW DAVID MARTINEZ IS IN RTA, NOW SARAH LEAVING SO JOSEPH RAMIREZ IS ENTERING RTA. WHO APPOINTS THE RTA PEOPLE? THE MAYOR OF ROBSTOWN THROUGH THE SMALL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE. NOW DO WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE COMMUNITY CAN GROW WITH THIS OLIGARCHY? IT IS TOO EXCLUSIVE. THEY DON'T SHARE THE WEALTH WITH ANYONE. 
SHAMSIE IS TIED IN WITH ALL THESE BIG DOLLARS, CONSULTANT WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN, THE SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET OF ROBSTOWN.THE SHAMSIES AND LENCHOS DO THE PATH OF PAST RESISTANCE. SHAMSIE FIRST LATCHED ON TO FIL VELA, THEN RENE RODRIGUEZ, NOW LENCHO. SHAMSIE TRIED TO BE VERY ACCOMMODATING WITH EDC BUT THEY REJECTED HIM SO THAT IS WHY HE STARTED AWARDING THINGS TO DOS LOGISTICS AND OMEGA TO CURRY FAVOR WITH LENCHO AND NOW IS TRYING TO HELP MORE OF LENCHOS COMPANIES WHICH IS THE NEW ONE LR GLOBAL AND ASSOCIATES. REMEMBER THAT LENCHO YOU NEVER SEE HIM MUCH IN PUBLIC. 
RECENTLY HE HAD A SEMINAR CALLED OCEAN SECURITY CONFERNCE WITH 34 COUNTRIES AND BROUGHT IN MILITARY PEOPLE AND THERE ARE DOLLARS BEING PUT OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT. SOLOMON SITS ON COMMITTEE TO AWARD MONIES THROUGH CONTRACTS. BY BEING RETIRED MANY OF THESE GENERAL AVOID BEING CONFLICTED. THE GENERALS USE THEIR INFLUENCE TO INFLUENCE THE PRESENT MILITARY PEOPLE WHO REPLACES THEM AND LENCHO FINDS A WAY TO PAY THE RETIRED GENERALS AS CONSULTANTS. HE MADE IT LOOK LIKE HE BROKE UP WIHT SOLOMON IN 2006 BUT IT WAS TRULY TO AVOID THE CONFLICT. THAT IS WHY HE IS USING HIS NEPHEW JOSEPH...TO AVOID CONFLICTS. SHAMSIE: AS COUNTY JUDGE HE WAS IDEALISTIC AND THEN BECAME REALISTIC AFTER THE EDC REJECTION. HE SAID, PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE BUT HE WENT WITH LENCHO. HE IS LIKE A WILLOW. HE HAS THAT CLASSIC BEHAVIOR AND GIVE IN AND DIVIDE AND CONQUER INSTEAD OF CREATE. THAT IS WHY HE JOINED WITH LENCHO IN ORDER TO BE WITH SOMEONE STRONG. HE ACTS LIKE A DEMOCRAT BUT PRACTICALLY BEGGED TO BE WITH EDC AND THE WHITES BUT AGAIN, THEY SPURNED HIM. DOS LOGISTICS MADE MILLIONS. THEY BOUGHT SHAMSIE A HOUSE. HMMM. THINK ABOUT IT. DID HE ACCEPT GIFTS LIKE THIS WHILE IN OFFICE? NOW YOU ARE SEEING THE PAYBACK THEY OWE SHAMSIE. 
LR GLOBAL OPERATES LIKE PART MARKETING PART BUSINESS (CONSTRUCTION, PUBLIC RELATIONS ETC). PARTICULARLY FOR MILITARY CONTRACTS. THEY ARE BRINGING IN SHAMSIE AS A CONSULTANT. THEY ARE CLEVER. SHAMSIE IS BEING PAID BY ENTITIES. THINK OF SOLOMON ORTIZ WHEN HE WAS YOUNG, GETS OUT OF ARMY, RUNS FOR CONTSTABLE, COMMISSIONER, SHERIFF, AND EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC POST IS ALWAYS PAYING MONEY. THEY NEVER HAVE SERVED ON SCHOOL BOARDS, CITY COUNCIL. THEIR WHOLE MENTALITY IS TO PIMP OFF SYSTEM. SAME WITH LENCHO. HE DOESNT HAVE TO PAY SHAMSIE, THE CITY AND SCHOOL BOARD OF ROBSTOWN FUNNELS MONEY. ROD RAMON AND ABEL HERRERO ARE A PART OF THE CLICK. NOW GRANTED, WE ARE ALL TRYING TO MAKE MONEY AND FEED OUR FAMILIES BUT THIS IS PIMPING OFF THE SYSTEM. THIS IS POLITICS.REMEMBER BORCHARD? HE APPOINTED TO THE PORT THE SAME BANKER WHO HIRED HIM. THE PEOPLE AT THE PORT NOW BUY THE INSURANCE IS BOUGHT WHICH BILL DODGE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH (BILL DODGE BANKER AT ROBSTOWN. SAME INSURANCE COMPANY IS BEING SUPPORTED BY LOBBYING EFFORTS OF HUGO BERLANGA AND RUBEN BONILLAS IS THE LAWYER! WHAT A RACKET!CONSULTANTS EVERYWHERE.
NOW EDC: PRIMARILY ANGLOS BUT CURIOUSLY MORE PLURALISTIC. THEY SHARE MORE OF THE WEALTH. THEY ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED AND NOT SO HEAVY HANDED AND PROJECT HIGHER STANDARDS. AL JONES, MIKE CARROLL, JOE FULTON, BERRY CONSTRUCTION AND ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF, BUT WHAT HAPPENS ITS A SMALL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH NOT SO TIGHTKNIT AS LENCHOS THEY ARE STILL SOMEWHAT EXCLUSIVE.THE EDC'S FORMULA IS SIMPLE. ITS A SHADOW GOVERNMENT. ROOTS GO BACK TO HAYDEN HEAD. HAYDEN HEAD WAS AN ATTORNEY. NEVER RAN FOR OFFICE. HE WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PORT. HE MADE SURE THAT CITY COUNCILMAN WERE BUSINESSMAN. WHEN THINGS WANTED TO BE DONE, HE WOULD GET PEOPLE WHO WANTED A CONTRACT, AND THE MEETINGS (LIKE THE MARKETING PLAN FORWARD CORPUS CHRISTI) AND WOULD SAY THE CONTRACTORS WOULD PAY FOR THE MARKETING, LOOK FOR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FROM THE PUBLIC (HAYDEN HEAD STARTED AMERICAN BANK IN THE 1970'S WHICH AL JONES IS THE HEAD OF NOW). A THREE PART OPERATION BEGINS: YOUR BUILDERS(THEY PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOR THE MARKETING TO SELL THE PROJECT), THE POLITICIANS LIKE MAYOR (LOOK WHO CONTRIBUTES MONEY TO THE POLITICIANS DAVID ENGOLS TO JUAN GARCIA EXAMPLE) AND THEN THE BANKS FUNDS IT (AL JONES IS THE MODERN DAY HAYDEN HEAD, FINANCED PACKERY, AMERICAN BANK CENTER, WHATABURGER FIELD).POLITICAINS SELL IT, BUILDERS MARKET IT, BANKS FINANCE IT. ON THE FOOD CHAIN POLITICIANS ARE THE LOWEST. HERE YOU HAVE THE EDC (NONPROFIT) WHICH IS A DEFACTO POLITICAL MACHINE. THEY CAN'T BE AUDITED BY THE CITY!!! THE CITY CAN'T LOOK AT THEIR BOOKS. ANOTHER THING, THE CITY GIVES THEM AUTHORITY FOR THE EDC TO DECIDE WHERE ECONOMIC GROWTH IS BEST, WHERE LAND VALUE SHOULD BE RAISED. THESE GUYS ON EDC KNOW WHERE LAND WILL RAISE VALUE, THEN THEY GO BUY THE LAND! THIS IS INSIDER TRADING. OVERNIGHT A PIECE OF CRAP LAND BECOMES GOLD. (INSIDE INFORMATION IS MORE POWERFUL THAN MONEY MY FRIENDS). THE EDC IS A POLTICAL MACHINE. WHO GETS THE CONTRACTS? 90 PERCENT OF PROJECTS, WHATABURGER FIELD AND AMERICAN BANK CENTER: JOE FULTON! MIKE CARROLL, ED MARTIN (HEAD OF BERRY CONSTRUCTION) CHANGE LEADERSHIP ROLES (DON'T CONFUSE KEN BERRY THE SOLOMONISTA WITH THE MAIN FAMILY).
CITY AND COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DIFFERENCES. JOE FULTON WAS LATE ON PROJECT HE UNDERBID EVERYONE ON. HE SAYS "I CAN'T DO IT WITH WHAT I BID, NEED MORE MONEY(THIS IS KNOWN AS COST OVERRUN). AMERICAN BANK CENTER, WHATABURGER FIELD. HE HAS SELDOM IF EVER COMPLETED A PROJECT ON TIME AND HAS DONE COST OVERRUN BIG TOWN. THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT THEY ARE ON, THE EDC ALLOW THESE COST OVERRUNS AND THE CITY HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT.CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP: APPOINT PEOPLE ON EDC BECAUSE THE CITY AND COUNTY CAN ONLY APPOINT SO MANY.LET'S LOOK AT NUMBERS. LESS THAN 1 PERCENT JOB GROWTH (WORKSOURCE) THEY GET INSIDE INFORMATION AND EVERYONE MAKES MONEY AND THE COMMUNITY RARELY BENEFITS. IF YOU DESTROY THE EDC, THEY WILL JUST BUILD ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. LOOK AT THE AMERICAN BANK CENTER BOARD AND YOU WILL SEE MANY BIG PLAYER. THE HEAD OF CCISD IS THERE. WHERE DID HE WORK? AMERICAN BANK. WHO HAS MARKETING CONTRACT: CAROL SCOTT (WIFE OF MARK SCOTT). JOHN LONGORIA: HE SITS ON ADVISORY BOARD, NELDA MARTINEZ ON CITY COUNCIL SHE SITS ON ADVISORY BOARD OF AMERICAN BANK TOO.
SAME THAT SHAMSIE AND LENCHO DO THE EDC DOES. THEY GO AFTER ENTITIES OF GOVERNMENT AND GO AFTER PUBLIC DOLLARS (WE ARE CREATING JOBS SAYS JOE FULTON IF YOU BUILD WHATABURGER WITH CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION? YOU CREATE NOTHING.
YOU ARE PASSING ON A BILL TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. THIS IS WHAT LENCHO/SHAMSIE ARE DOING AND EDC IS DOING. LESS THAN 1 PERCENT JOB GROWTH. ALL THE TAXPAYERS MONEY WENT TO THESE PEOPLE THIS IS THE IGNORANCE OF THE TAXPAYERS OF NUECES COUNTY.
PACKERY CHANNEL: THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI BORROWED 9 MILLION. HOW MUCH INTEREST DID AMERICAN BANK CHARGE IN INTEREST? 99 PERCENT INTEREST AND YOU AND I ARE PAYING FOR IT. USURY, NO LESS. IT WAS ON LOYD NEILS WATCH.
CONCLUSION: THE FLOODGATES OF OPPORTUNITY. THESE GROUPS MONOPOLIZE POWER AND HOPE. THESE PEOPLE CREATE NOTHING AND PROFIT AMONG THEMSELVES.PEOPLE OF CORPUS CHRISTI, CHECK IT OUT. DO THE RESEARCH. YOU DON'T NEED A COLLEGE DEGREE TO COMPREHEND THESE THINGS. I CARE ABOUT MY COMMUNITY AND THESE GROUPS UNDERESTIMATE THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY THINK WE WOULD NEVER FIGURE IT OUT. BUT WE ARE FIGURING IT OUT.
MORE TO COME. COMMENTS PLEASE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Darrell Keach, 33, Nueces County Record Star, General Manager
How long in current position and how long in newspapers: I’ve been actively involved in the business since 1994. I’ve grown up in the business and I’m fourth generation, starting with my great-grandfather who owned the Floresville Chronicle Journal and later bought The Record Star in 1926. Since then my grandfather Carroll Keach was publisher and my father Sam Fore Keach is the current publisher.
Why did you get into newspapering: I didn’t seem to have much choice I guess, being fourth generation.
What is your most rewarding part of the business: Helping a new or existing business and the community we serve succeed, while at the same time making our own business succeed.
What is the worst part of running a newspaper: Failing to succeed.
What are your goals for the future: Continue to grow our circulation and reach without sacrificing quality.
--
Sam Keach, a Robstown historian whose family has owned the Record Star newspaper there since 1925, wrote a column in August describing chatter about fast-action, high-stakes poker around the clock in the 1940s at a dance hall/watering hole named Rob's Place in Robstown.
He was not able to document Texas Hold 'Em having its beginnings there, but the column conjured a response from Gigi Starnes, 63, born in Falfurrias, now living in San Antonio. Her father was an occasional gambler who owned Clancy's Cafe in Falfurrias, a popular restaurant with area gamblers.
Starnes' response to Keach's column: "I well remember whisperings of those high stakes card games. There was a gambler called Buttermilk (because that's all he would drink while playing) who once gave me a $10 bill, which he said he'd won playing Held 'em in Rob's. I must have been around 5 or 6, and remember wondering who Rob was, now I think it must have been Robstown."
Historical raids in Corpus Christi at places such as the famed Dragon Grill verify the existence of gambling for decades. Linn Keys (Doc) Mason, of Pennsylvania, arrived in Corpus Christi around 1926. Eight years later he opened the Dragon Grill on Corpus Christi Beach, according to Nueces County Historical Commission information.
It was a plush, swanky nightclub, a classic blending of art deco, excellent food, good music, dancing and gambling that thrived for years.
An early morning blaze destroyed the building on Jan. 15, 1944, according to Caller-Times archives. Within 18 months, a new Dragon Grill was opened at the Elks Club building, built in 1928 at the corner of Water and Starr streets.
Considerable money changed hands nightly in the third-floor Jaina Room. Entrance was achieved only by way of a special elevator. Blackjack, poker, dice games, slot machines and roulette were favorite games. A system of warning lights and buzzers were used if danger threatened from below.
In August 1953, however, one industrious policeman, Raymond Lamp'l, joined with FBI agents who had been dating women known to Mason, and all posed as customers. They watched as patrons threw down their chips, and when it was Lamp'l's turn he threw down his badge.
Charges of keeping and exhibiting a gaming table were brought against Mason and one of his employees. Though the grand jury returned a no-bill, that was the end of Mason's gambling career in Corpus Christi and the end of big-time gambling at the Dragon Grill.
Contact Mike Baird at 886-3774 _or bairdm@caller.com
http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_3545047,00.html