image of site masthead
image of site masthead
  para justicia banner

Elect Luis Labrado Chief Justice

Eighth Court of Appeals









Poetry Corner






Today I Saw a Butterfly Die     Hoy Presencie la Muerte de una Mariposa

Odd mismatch, two words that fail
to parse you, my iridescent beauty,
tasting this flower and the other
in no apparent order, then off

to ride the wind with wings
so poorly suited to the task,
stuttering in measureless dance
ah, so blind to the lurking mantis,

leaving but an exquisite piece of wing
floating soundlessly to Mother Earth,
brief remembrance of translucent
passage that unremarked, must serve

to honor
            the Creator's unfathomable palette.




Palabra sin sentido que falla al
analizarte, mi belleza iridescente,
saboreanto esta flor y la otra
sin orden alguna, para luego

montar el viento con alas
pobremente aptas para tarea tal,
tartamudeando un baile sin medida
ah, tan ciega al mantis acechante

dejando mas un trozo exquisito de ala
flotando silencioso hacia la Madre Tierra,
breve remembranza de un translúcido
pasaje que sin dejar huella, ha de servir

para dar honra
            a la insondable paleta del Creador.























copyright © 2011, Jesús B. Otxoa




Musings From the Border

Enough is Enough - Stop Feeding the Hate - Stop the Deportations - Stand For Principle

I dedicate this video to rogue racist Justice Antonin Scalia, the most unethical member of the Supreme Court in recent history.

"Since you took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, more than 1.2 million people have been deported, more than in any other presidential administration in the history of the United States, including the eight years of your predecessor. While your administration is claiming to deport serious criminals, this claim is not borne out by your own data.

"Litigation and research from prominent universities, including Yale, NYU, UC Berkeley and Stanford has shown a pattern of due process violations for those targeted by immigration enforcement. Advocacy and human rights organizations have also documented the mistreatment of immigrant detainees held for long periods of time in poorly administered federal ICE detention centers, often the location of sexual harassment and other human rights violations. In addition, more than 1,500 people have died attempting to cross the Mexican U.S. border during the past three

Organizations Send Open Letter to President Obama

years. This three year, four month campaign of apprehension, deportation, and detention is decidedly worse and of a larger scale than Operation Wetback of 1954, the massive deportation and repatriation of Mexican origin residents in 1932 and 1933, and the infamous Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920. History will judge your administration harshly on these intemperate and unjust actions."

The above was forwarded by Prof. Roberto Calderón over at North Texas University.

A Travesty of Justice: Eighth Court of Appeals

Chatting with a knowledgeable individual about the state of things in this All-American City which other municipal politicians and plain folk study so they won't be like us, I was struck by our inability to understand why all the uproar about a canceled boxing match as compared with the response to the trashing of the First Amendment to the Constitution of these United States by our august Eighth Court of Appeals.

And no, it isn't that perennial bete noir beloved by graduates of our Harvard on the Border, the lithium in our drinking water. For the lithium to affect any bodily functions, you would literally have to drink gallons upon gallons of water non-stop for a few days or so, and all you would accomplish would be to spread your insides all over the asphalt when you finally popped like an offended balloon - and this without managing to store lithium in your body in quantities sufficient to make you frown when you meant to smile.

Back in the day when I practiced law, well informed lawyers across the state considered the Eighth Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso, to be the worst, in terms of dumb or dumber, of all the courts of appeals in Texas. I am now happy to claim that this court as presently constituted has, in my opinion and in rather splendid fashion, temporarily claimed (barring any contender) the title of being the most result oriented appellate court in the state.

This means, quite simply, that the court decides the case based on any number of feelings, be they political, personal, practical, and then writes to justify its preconceived decision.

Rather like a fighter throwing a fight. A big no no. But first, the canceled and now restored boxing match.

Of course the UT Chancellor was right in cancelling the fight. Haven't Congressman Reyes and President of UTEP Natalicio been telling us these many years that terrorism lurks just across the creek? Haven't they been bringing silly as geese experts from the FBI, Homeland Security, Right Wing Politicians and Private Contractors to tell us at the annual Border Security Conference (or whatever its name is) at UTEP that scratch an "illegal" immigrant and find a "terrorist" is the name of the game?

So, what better venue for terrorists to strike than a Sun Bowl full of barbarians (many from Juárez, of course) howling at the antics of two young men hell bent on beating on each other in a frenzy of flying fists and sweat? All fueled by beer, naturally, at premium prices, which appears to be the other problem, now that the Chancellor has relented, allowing the fight to go forward, but without beer.

Anyone who went to the Ice Bowl to watch the Notre Dame-Miami game a couple of years ago surely remembers the several alcohol fueled fights that broke out late in the game at different places in the stadium. Acting thuggishly, El Pasoans simply don't know how to hold their liquor at public events. Maybe lithium and alcohol don't mix. The Chancellor is on the money. No beer, bobotes y bobitas.

Now, the Court. The name of the case is, of course, John F. Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries, et al., and here you can view the entire opinion by clicking on John F. Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries, et al.

The Recall Election That Wasn't: The Court Kills And Buries Democracy in El Paso

Those citizens who reside in El Paso, Texas and who care enough to vote, had adopted a City Charter containing the process which is popularly known as "recall and referendum." Following this process, voters had approved a recall election for the removal of City Mayor John Cook and City Council members Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega.

In pages 1-9 of its opinion, the Court sets out its versions of the facts leading to this litigation. Interestingly, it totally ignores the order entered on May 20, 2011 by a Federal District Court in El Paso regarding the anti-gay ordinance enacted by the voters, which you can view by clicking on Martin et al., v. City of El Paso et al.

Let me make one thing clear. I am no friend of Tom Brown and his ministries, or of Catholic clerics like they fey Fr. Michael Rodríguez, who was transferred from El Paso for involving the Church in politics. It is terribly uncomfortable being in the same bed, figuratively speaking, with homophobes who make a career of spewing hate.

That said, the fact that the recall petition was sponsored by people such as the above does not of itself taint the process. Simply put, a sufficient number of people signed the recall petition to activate the next step in the process, which was validation of the signatures, which was done, and then an election was to have taken place.

It is crucial that people make the distinction between the process and the content of the referendum, which was in fact a thinly disguised attack aimed at marginalizing the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgendered-queer community and to make of them non-participants in a democratic polis with its attendant rights. And, in fact, if you agree with these people, you have little business reading what I write.

It is the process that I vigorously defend, the same process that uncounted numbers of our servicemen and women have died to support, and that is the right in our democracy to vote and to have your vote counted.

It is this process that the Eighth Court of Appeals sitting in El Paso has trashed and has effectively killed. The people who voted by signing the petition for the recall of sitting politicians have been marginalized by a rogue court.

Three things about the opinion: one, if faulty in both logic and law, it is, nonetheless, cleverly written; two, it is a per curiam opinion, with all three Justices signing off on the thing, and three, only one justice is clever and smart enough to have written the thing.

In my view, the opinion was written by Chief Justice Ann Crawford McClure.

Pages 9 through 16 of the opinion are taken up with an extended discussion regarding discretion, the trial court's duty in enforcing a law, the Election Code and Cook's right to an injunction before the Court gets to the heart of its opinion on page 17, which is its discussion of the Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United which you can view by clicking on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).

I have just been tipped by a couple of my lawyer pals about an article written in Texas Lawyer by Cook's lawyer, and am I flabbergasted. Chief Justice McClure has bought his argument, hook, line and sinker. This is a quote from page 30 of Cook's brief before the Court:

"3. Chapter 253.094 is presumed to be constitutional, and WOL's First Amendment arguments are irrelevant, incorrect, and inapposite to temporary injunction.

"The question before the trial court was whether Cook met his very modest burden of proof on the issue of whether a temporary injunction should issue. Although certain proponents were eager to challenge the constitutionality of the Election Code, the challenge is inappropriate in this setting. The argument must be raised in an affirmative defense by way of confession and avoidance, and then brought to the court by summary judgment. In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex. 2000)."

The "Tex 2000" means that this is a decision by the Texas Supreme Court, decided in 2000. Again, from Cook's brief:

"The presumption is that a statute enacted by our Legislature is constitutional, and attacks on that presumption should generally be raised as an affirmative defense to enforcement of the statue.') I have added the emphasis.

The brief goes on to state that the Texas Ethics Commission, in reviewing Citizens United found that it did not affect the prohibition against corporate campaign contributions, and so advised the Legislature, which then proceeded to amend the Election Code to more or less comply with Citizens United.. One notes that this is the only mention made of Citizens United in Cook's brief, which can be viewed here.

Where language matters: In In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex. 2000) the Texas Supreme Court case cited in Cook's brief, the Court actually held that "The presumption is that a statute enacted by our Legislature is constitutional, and attacks on that presumption should generally be raised as an affirmative defense to enforcement of the statute." I have added the emphasis.

Note the words "should" and "generally". Obviously, the Court was not laying down an imperative type of rule. Were that the case, it would have said "shall" instead of "should".

Notwithstanding the actual holding, Cook's brief, citing the same case, says that "Although certain proponents were eager to challenge the constitutionality of the Election Code, the challenge is inappropriate in this setting. The argument must be raised in an affirmative defense by way of confession and avoidance, and then brought to the court by summary judgment." I have added the emphasis.

Note the words "must be raised".

Cook did not assert that the First Amendment issues were not raised, for indeed they were at the earliest possible time, at the trial court hearing: his complaint is that the question of constitutionality is not appropriate for the court of appeals. In rather coarse language, he dismisses the First Amendment arguments as "irrelevant, incorrect, and inapposite to temporary injunction." But if the basis for that injunction is an unconstitutional statute offensive to the First Amendment, then the arguments are there for the Appellate Court to consider.

At best, and given the failure to discuss Citizens United in his brief, Cook's argument is surely silly and hollow.

On the other hand, the Appellate Court did consider Citizens United, albeit briefly, and in so doing, committed one of several cardinal sins courts and the lawyers who practice before them should not commit.

Back in the day, I was fortunate to have learned my constitutional law under the late legendary Professor Charles Alan Wright at the University of Texas School of Law, who also was the one who taught us about legal sins to avoid: never miscite a case, telling a court that it stands for something that it does not. Never try to hide a case that stands against your position. Always try to distinguish it, or explain why such a case is not in point to your position before the court. Always be candid with the court. This last, I think I remember, is even enshrined in what used to be the Canons of Ethics, now the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

And always Professor Wright's advice to senior law students about to graduate: "go forth and practice law in the grand manner."

Citizens United involved a scurrilous video attacking Hilary Clinton during the last election.

"Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make it available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating 2 USC §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to the documentary, and (2) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to the documentary and the ads."

I am setting down side by side what the Court of Appeals said the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, and what the Supreme Court actually said.


  • "In Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal statutory restriction on 'corporate independent expenditures' was unconstitutional. Id. The Supreme Court also recognized that 'Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they 'impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,' . . . and 'do not prevent anyone from speaking[.]' Id". citing cases.

    Comparing the truncated quotes the Court of Appeals cites with the entire quotation from the Supreme Court opinion clearly shows that the discussion by the Supreme Court has to do with disclosure by people who prepared the documentary and the advertising therefor.

    What relevance disclosing the producers and advertisers of a documentary that is going to be aired on cable television have to do with petitions for a recall election is unclear. The petitions not only bear the names of the signatories and are a matter of public record, making application of the disclosure requirement redundant. There is every reason to believe that disclosing the names of monetary contributors would reasonably subject them to the dangers set out in the Supreme Court's opinion. Disclosure obviously has limits.

    In a remarkable, self-serving paragraph, the Court of Appeals writes: "Let us be clear. The election Code has not and does not prohibit any and all corporate contributions in connection with recall elections. It merely prescribes the parameters under which contributions may be made. Appellees were not barred from pursuing the November 2010 ballot initiative through the special purpose committee known as EPTFV, nor were they banned from speaking. They spoke and spoke loudly. They are not banned from speaking now. The must simply follow the protocol established in the Election Code with which they are already familiar. All they needed to do was "re-purpose" EPTFV or create a new special purpose committee. 'Why?', one might ask. Why are these procedures necessary? Citizens United tells us precisely why:

    "'The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'" Citizens United, 130 S. C. at 916.

    Truth to tell, Citizens United tells us far more than the meager quote above regarding the First Amendment.

  • "3. BCRA §§201 and 311 are valid as applied to the ads for Hillary (the documentary) and to the movie itself. Pp. 50-57.(emphasis added)

    (a) Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they "impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities," Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, or " ' "prevent anyone from speaking," ' " McConnell, supra, at 201. The Buckley Court explained that disclosure can be justified by a governmental interest in providing "the electorate with information" about election-related spending sources. The McConnell Court applied this interest in rejecting facial challenges to §§201 and 311. 540 U. S., at 196. However, the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a " 'reasonable probability' " that disclosing its contributors' names would " 'subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.' " Id., at 198. Pp. 50-52.

    "(b) The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United's ads. They fall within BCRA's "electioneering communication" definition: They referred to then-Senator Clinton by name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and "insure that the voters are fully informed" about who is speaking, Buckley, supra, at 76. At the very least, they avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party. "The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations-including nonprofit advocacy corporations-either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election . . .

    "Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of Kennedy , J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak-and it does not-the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations. For example, every PAC must appoint a treasurer, forward donations to the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of the identities of the persons making donations, preserve receipts for three years, and file an organization statement and report changes to this information within 10 days. See id., at 330-332 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 253-254). . .

    "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15 ('In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential'). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. . .

    "For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,' which requires the Government to prove that the restriction 'furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.' WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.). While it might be maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S., at 124 ( Kennedy , J., concurring in judgment), the quoted language from WRTL provides a sufficient framework for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests in this case. We shall employ it here." (emphasis added)

Well. Yes. Let's be clear. Immediately opposite you can read what can be inelegantly
called the guts of Citizens United regarding speech, the First Amendment, and the
federal more or less equivalent of Chapter 253 of the Texas Election Code.

In fact, let's tailor the language from Citizens United by inserting Chapter 253:

"Chapter 253 of the Texas Election Code does not allow corporations to speak. Even if
an EPTFV could somehow allow a corporation to speak-and it does not-the option to form
EPTFVs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with Chapter 253. EPTFVs
are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive
regulations.

For example, every EPTFV must appoint a treasurer, forward donations to
the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of the identities of the persons making
donations, preserve receipts for three years, and file an organization statement and
report changes . . ."

And just to make sure there's no misunderstanding —

"For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.

"Laws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,' which requires the Government to prove that the restriction 'furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.' WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.).

"While it might be maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S., at 124 ( Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment), the quoted language from WRTL provides a sufficient framework for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests in this case. We shall employ it here."

There are many references to practices that "chill" speech in Citizens United. But none come close to the reality that was the fact situation facing the Court of Appeals in John F. Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries et al. For all intents and purposes, and as a laboratory model of a case to parse through the "strict scrutiny" standard mandated by the Supreme Court for cases of this type, this case should have been the vehicle of choice for applying the standard mandated by the high court.

Its message, in the imperative, was and is easy to understand.

"We shall employ it here"

Except that the Court of Appeals refused to apply the law of Citizens United to the case before it, and in so doing, it openly ignored the mandate of the High Court.

"Laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny;" here is an example of such a law from the Texas Election Code:


























a) In addition to the information required by Section 252.002, a campaign treasurer appointment by a general-purpose committee must include:

(1) the full name, and any acronym of the name that will be used in the name of the committee as provided by Subsection (d), of each corporation, labor organization, or other association or legal entity that directly establishes, administers, or controls the committee, if applicable, or the name of each person who determines to whom the committee makes contributions or the name of each person who determines for what purposes the committee makes expenditures;

(2) the full name and address of each general-purpose committee to whom the committee intends to make political contributions; and

(3) the name of the committee and, if the name is an acronym, the words the acronym represents.

(b) If any of the information required to be included in a general-purpose committee's appointment changes, excluding changes reported under Section 252.002(b), the committee shall file an amended appointment with the commission not later than the 30th day after the date the change occurs.

(c) The name of a general-purpose committee may not be the same as or deceptively similar to the name of any other general-purpose committee whose campaign treasurer appointment is filed with the commission. The commission shall determine whether the name of a general-purpose political committee is in violation of this prohibition and shall immediately notify the campaign treasurer of the offending political committee of that determination. The campaign treasurer of the political committee must file a name change with the commission not later than the 14th day after the date of notification. A campaign treasurer who fails to file a name change as provided by this subsection or a political committee that continues to use a prohibited name after its campaign treasurer has been notified by the commission commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

(d) The name of a general-purpose committee must include the name of each corporation, labor organization, or other association or legal entity other than an individual that directly establishes, administers, or controls the committee. The name of an entity that is required to be included in the name of the committee may be a commonly recognized acronym by which the entity is known.

A Class B misdemeanor is punishable by a $2,000 fine, up to 180 days in jail, or both.


There remains § 253 and its various subdivisions. It is highly doubtful that the application of the "strict scrutiny standard" by a competent court would result in anything other than a finding of impermissible burdening the exercise of protected speech under the First Amendment, particularly given the fact that this is a penal statute: i.e., one faces significant punishment for disobeying it.

Does the Court of Appeals really think that Brown's Word of Life Church, a Catholic or Protestant Church, a Jewish Synagogue, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation, or, for that matter, a Coven of Wiccans/Pagans, all need to pay homage to the Texas Election Code before they can distribute petitions and solicit signatures on church property to recall a given politician? Does this Court even being to understand the Pandora's box it has opened?

"Brown invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, when he was asked, among other questions, if: the website was identified by the name of WOL Church; (2) WOL was responsible and had worked with TBM (Tom Brown Ministries) to publish the information posted on July 21, 2011; (3) WOL Church and TBM are one and the same; (4) through its website and use of its premises, WOL Church circulated petitions to recall Cook, Byrd and Ortega; . . . In civil proceedings, a trial court may draw an adverse inference against a party who invokes his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment." (citing cases)— Court of Appeals opinion, p. 16.

This disgusting judicial celebration of Brown's prudent invocation of his right to remain silent at a time our hot dog District Attorney (and yes, I have a bone to pick with him and his alleged status as a champion of justice.) was busy investigating individuals and churches for offending the Texas Election Code is reminiscent of a drunk poet traipsing through a field of daisies while tootling on a flute.

And what to say about "chilling" not only the exercise of free speech, but citing, with obvious approval, involving government in monitoring the free exercise of religion?

Just how much more can free speech be "chilled" when citizens have to invoke the Fifth Amendment for engaging in what the Supreme Court has defined as protected political speech, a core First Amendment activity?

And all to protect the interests of a megalomaniac politician come to EL Paso from Brooklyn, whose "progressive" vision for El Paso includes his attempt to destroy el Segundo Barrio by handing it over to Bill Sanders's real estate investment trusts, and empowering the radical right wing Republican developers by opening the doors to City Hall to them as no other individual or administration has done in the past 100 years. Not too many years back, greedy, self-serving politicians like Cook likely would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

I was particularly saddened to see Senator José Rodríguez not only play the apologist for the retrograde Texas Election Code and John F. Cook, but to testify as well against recall elections. Better had you stood up for the Bill of Rights, and in particular, for the First Amendment. Please don't metamorphose into another Tati, José. That really would be the last straw.

A pox on you judicial pygmies (with apologies to the little people).

Important Judicial Elections: My Choices and Why

Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas:

Michelle Petty and Keith Hampton, the latter for Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Any Democrat is needed to start balancing the ultra right wing Republican majorities on both courts.

Chief Justice, 8th Court of Appeals District:

Luis Labrado. I have known Luis for almost 30 years. He caught my attention back in the day when he was elected Chief Judge of the Municipal Courts. He cleaned up a system that was functioning basically as a collection agency for the city. Since he left the bench he has practiced civil and criminal law. From a family of veterans, he is one of the few males in his extended family who did not choose a military career. His wife works for the Diocese of El Paso and Daniel, their son, recently graduated from St. John's University in New York and is currently a graduate student in economics at the University of Texas at Austin.

Luis is a solid lawyer and family man who, unlike the current Chief Justice, will follow the law and put the Appellate Court back on track.

Associate Justice, 8th Court of Appeals District, Place 2:

Yvonne Rodríguez. Well qualified, the only candidate for this position who would not be a disruptive force on the court as would the two ego driven male candidates.

Associate Justice, 8th Court of Appeals District, Place 3:

Any person you choose to write in. Yes, I have a bone to pick with the incumbent, who follows the law as it suits her. As a trial judge, she was a prosecutor on the bench. As an appellate judge, she shows up at work almost in time to go to lunch, and leaves early, according to neighbors in her gated community. Poor taxpayers.

District Judge, 41st Judicial District:

Dolores Reyes. I am relying on lawyer friends, as I do not know Dolores. I have a reservation or two. Here is another long time assistant prosecutor wanting to be a judge. I am bothered by the "I represented victims" shtick. No, you represented the people, and if you were up to par, you also played by the rules and followed Constitutional constraints. But I'm told you're the best of the bunch. I am impressed by your parents, so maybe you'll be o.k. By the way, I also have a bone to grind with one of your opponents, also an assistant prosecutor under Esparza.

District Judge, 383rd Judicial District:

Mike Herrera. I have known Mike since he was an assistant district attorney assigned to the late District Judge Brunson Moore's court. He has served as a judge fairly, without favoring anyone, and is one of few people I know who actively supports the Southern Poverty Law Center. A good man who deserves to be re-elected.

District Judge, 388th Judicial District:

Philip "Phil" Mullin. A long time friend, former JAG officer who continued service in the reserves, retiring as a Lt. Colonel. Has practiced law in El Paso and has been actively involved in community service for years. He is knowledgeable and I know him to be fair. He deserves this position.

District Judge, 448th Judicial District:

Regina Arditti. Targeted by District Attorney Esparza in what he thought was an easy victim case for his political benefit, she survived a disgraceful prosecution abetted by a racist huckleberry judge from East Texas. Re-elect her. She will join Judge Bonnie Rangel as another judge who is not in Esparza's pocket. I recommend her without reservation.

Criminal District Judge, Court No. 1:

Theresa Caballero TC At a time when defense lawyers routinely say "thank you, judge", when an objection is overruled, Caballero is a breath of fresh air. I am aware that many consider her a loose cannon. I am also aware that none of these critics would have had the balls to take on a racist east Texas judge as she and her partner recently did and were leaned on by the Bar for doing so. She is fierce, as an advocate should be, and does not put up with sanctimonious crap, as many of her critics do. Along with Judges Arditti and Rangel, she would be another judge who would not be in the District Attorney's pocket. From her blog:

"I am running for Criminal District Court No. One. I have two opponents. Both are assistant district attorneys, employees of DA Jaime Esparza. Neither one has resigned in order to run. Both are campaigning during business hours. Both were at Democratic County Headquarters at 11:00 am a month ago. Two months ago, one was at the El Paso Bar meeting candidate forum at 11:30 a.m. This morning one came sauntering into the court house at 8:45 am, 45 minutes after start time. These are just the times when I have caught the two not at work. Do you really want to be financing the campaigns of two assistant district attorneys? Is this honest? Of the two, Diane Navarrete I found to be the most dishonest. Instead of quitting her job and campaigning on her own time, she is milking her $100,000/year plus taxpayer position for all that it's worth. When confronted with this at forums she simply ignores the fact that she is chronically out campaigning during business hours. When a person takes money from the taxpayers to render a service and then instead spends time out promoting herself, most people would call this stealing.

"Navarrete is also the prosecutor in charge of cases assigned to the court where her office dismissed Sexual Assault of a Child charges against EPPD officer Phil Amato - they said they were dismissing the charges because the "girl lied about her age." Navarrete knows that the "girl lying about her age" is no defense in the state of Texas. Navarrete routinely prosecutes non-cops, in fact young boys, for having sex with underage girls who "have lied about their age." When you ask why she has the double standard between the average boy and the COP (who should know better than to have sex with his partner's daughter's 13 year old best friend) Navarrete just walks off. In fact Sherrif Wiles was not happy that Aamato's case had been dismissed. Wiles, then police Chief, had worked hard to get Amato fired. With the dismissal out of Navarrete's case load, Amato was reinstated in the PD and is back out on the streets. You can thank Dianne Navarrete personally for that one. Is this Judge material?"

I have personally referred people to lawyers, parents whose sons were victimized by Navarrete's double standard. She is a work of art, and has apparently been well trained by her boss. It would truly be terrible were she to be elected.

John Dear, S.J., is Coming to Town: A Patriot, a Man of God

A man in the mold of Daniel Berrigan, S.J., a man nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jesuit Fr. John Dear will be in El Paso on May 24.

He will be at a talk/book signing event sponsored by El Paso Pax Christi at the St. Pius X Community Hall on Clark and Geronimo Streets at 7:00 p.m. His latest book, Lazarus, Come Forth - How Jesus Confronts the Culture of Death and Invites us into the New Life of Peace, will be on sale for $15.00.

For more information you can contact — phdelgado@hotmail.com — or call 740-3962. Apart from being a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, Fr. Dear is best remembered in these parts for facing down and chasing off a company of U.S. Army soldiers who were marching and shouting cadence in front of his church in New Mexico, trying to disrupt services.

He has written about his appearance in court about a year ago:

"As P.W. Singer writes in "Wired for War: the Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century,, unmanned aerial vehicles like the MQ-9 Reaper drone are used by the Pentagon not only for surveillance – but to kill and blow up buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defying international law, the CIA uses the Reaper to assassinate and blow up buildings in Pakistan. The Pentagon and CIA adore these new weapons.

"With no pilot or crew, no U.S. military officers can be injured or killed. They can be directed by young officers thousands of miles away. Forty other nations are racing to develop similar drone programs.

"Welcome to the future.

"On the day of our action drones flew low in front of us for hours. It was an astonishing sight to see these black predators hovering over the beautiful Nevada desert. What terror must they invoke as they fly over the villages of the helpless poor in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq?

"The drones are the sons of nuclear weapons. They offer a bleak future – a sky full of black death, hovering over the earth. Our modest gesture – prayer, roses, and of course, pizza – advocated another future, a future of peace without drones or nuclear weapons.

"In an opening statement, Kathy Kelly summarized what defendants would prove regarding their obligations under international law and their exercise of rights protected by the U.S. constitution. The judge told her, quite firmly, that any testimony unrelated to the charge of trespass would be disallowed.

"Yet, much to our surprise, Judge Jansen decided that all three expert witnesses would be allowed to testify. Rev. Steve Kelly, S.J., rose and called on former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark as his first witness".

It will be a pleasure to finally get to meet the man some of us have read so much about.


This site is best viewed with the free Firefox Browser


- 30 -






About










The lovely "Justicia & Libertad" banner is used by courtesy of my brother over at XicanoPwr.com, and the "Brown and Proud" graphic comes from my other bro over at The Unapologetic Mexican.org


This is a not for profit web site dedicated to alternative news and topical commentary.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is made available in our efforts t, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyright material as provided for in §107 of the U.S. copyright law. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. §107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.