Herald Loses (1st Round?) Appeal In DA Election Ad Case.

THE Zavaletta ad.

'Member the one (or five)? In political circles across the land, it's since gone down in infamy for helping torpedo its author's chances at election; and subsequently reigning legal high holy hell upon a former District Attorney and two local newspapers.

Well, to their credit, the Herald updated its readers a couple of weeks ago as to the status of the criminal side of the scandal. The current DA can proceed in the prosecution of former DA de Leon.

But what of the civil suits filed against some/all of the above principals? Last folks had heard, Freedom Communications, Inc. had appealed the 357th District Court's denial of motion for summary judgement. No news since, until an obscure article at Courthouse News Service eked out into the innernets last week:

A Texas newspaper publisher must continue to fight a defamation claim brought by four men who were named in a campaign ad that accused the incumbent district attorney of being soft on sex offenders, a 5th (sic) Circuit judge ruled.

Read the appellate opinion here. (PDF)

Some highlights:

On appeal, Freedom argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because: (1) the fair report privilege, as provided at common law and by statute, bars the appellees’ suit; (2) the advertisements at issue are substantially true; and (3) the appellees cannot establish the elements of invasion of privacy. We affirm.

On point (2):

Because an issue of material fact exists as to whether the advertisements at issue here are substantially true, Freedom has not established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of this affirmative defense. Therefore, Freedom’s second issue is overruled.

On point (3):

We conclude that Freedom did not meet its burden to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the appellees’ invasion of privacy claim. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Freedom’s motion for summary judgment on those grounds. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). We overrule Freedom’s third issue.

Some legal eagles claim more opinions are reversed from the 13th Court of Appeals, by the Texas Supreme Court, than any other appellate court in the state. Will Freedom Communications, Inc press their luck at the next level or take their lumps where the mess was made, here at home?

Out of the Frying Pat. Into the Fire.

GoodTimeCharlie is on the move. This time maneuvering through the thickets of hypocrisy and karma, up to the big boy's chair.

So pick your poison, Brownsville. As the Herald puts it:

"Given Atkinson's own arrest, it's ironic that he doesn't apply the presumption of innocence to my client," said Blaylock.
Atkinson, however, said traffic-related run-ins of "reckless driving or some stupidity" do not compare with possible abuse of authority and other serious allegations that the mayor could face.

Right! Yeah! No comparison at all to times when one attempts (and fails) to throw their official weight around to get off on a DUI. Apples and oranges, dudes.

Oh.. wait... Nevermind.



Please God no.

Say it ain't so that this turkey is, if even for a few months, next-in-line for the Mayorship:

People ask me today if I made a mistake helping Pat Ahumada over (Ernie Hernandez) and to this day, my answer is the same, No! Why you ask? Because at the end of the day, I would much deal with a jerk than with a person who has no integrity or who will stab people in the back.
- BatB comment, 9/20/2008

So many questions, so little time. But ask yourself, who's stabbing who now?

Does Annette Ul*&%$# Have Some 'Splaining to Do?

I've recently heard from attorney buddies that their law-school prof's often claimed that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if given half a chance. But I never really imagined the full potential for abuse until now.

From the Herald coverage of the Juan Angel Guerra indictments:

The defense lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictments because proper legal procedure was not followed. There are questions about who served on the grand jury, who signed the indictments and why they were not presented to a judge in open court.

One way or another, all those defendants' attorneys are gonna know what was (or wasn't) disclosed in those grand jury proceedings; and if they even occurred at all:

Article 19.42 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states:

Art. 19.42. PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT GRAND JURORS
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), information collected by the court, court personnel, or prosecuting attorney during the grand jury selection process about a person who serves as a grand juror, including the person's home address, home telephone number, social security number, driver's license number, and other personal information, is confidential and may not be disclosed by the court, court personnel, or prosecuting attorney.
(b) On a showing of good cause, the court shall permit disclosure of the information sought to a party to the proceeding.

Article 20.02(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states:

(d) The defendant may petition a court to order the disclosure of information otherwise made secret by this article or the disclosure of a recording or typewritten transcription under Article 20.012 as a matter preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.

I'm no lawyer. Don't even play one on TV. But these 2-page (w/ cover) indictments read pretty weak to me. Some of them don't even reference specific laws that might've been broken. Isn't that a requirement of an indictment?

I suspect that, in short order, this page will have some additional information in the Disciplinary History section, if it even continues to exist at all.

With Leads Like These...

Harlingen Post had it first.


The civil shoe has dropped, too:
KGBT: Zavaletta, Former DA and Two Newspapers Sued in Defamation Case

The story fleshed out some more at The Harlingen Post.

Declined at Intake.(But Slow on Uptake.)

From the Herald article:

Zavaletta explained that he signed "a sworn victim/witness statement detailing how I came to be in possession of this information which at no time indicated that it was confidential or could not be disseminated to any third person."

While this may be true, there was an article published on 2/28, just two days after the Zavaletta campaign first ran the offending ad. In it:

District Attorney Armando Villalobos said the information contained in the advertisement is sent to Monica's House or Maggie's House. It is confidential and not subject for public viewing, he said, as the case files contain information about complainants and victims, which are protected by law.

Wasn't the DA's indication of the confidentiality of these names reason enough not to run them again?

Why did the Zavaletta campaign publish the SAME ad (both with full names of the individuals declined at intake and then with just their initials) OVER and OVER again?

Herald 2/26, A9 - original run of ad, with full names.
Herald 2/29, C3 - 2nd run of ad, with initials.
Herald 3/2, C5 - 3rd run of ad, with full names.
Herald 3/3, C3 - 4th run of ad, with full names.
Herald 3/4, C3 - 5th run of ad, with initials.

I struggled to comprehend how an attorney couldn't conceive of the confidentiality possibility before the first ad run. But then to run it multiple times again after he was effectively warned of the criminal (and not to mention civil) liability is just arrogant or asinine. Pick your poison.

Is this who you want for District Attorney, Cameron County?

Drowning victims are probably the most dangerous to try to rescue. In a panic, drowning victims are likely to claw at rescuers and climb to the surface at all costs. NEVER attempt a direct rescue of a conscious drowning victim without proper training.

- How To Rescue a Drowning Victim

Well, is it?

ETA: There's a VERY enlightening reader comment on the article's page:

The ad that Zavaleta(sic) ran was completely disengenuous(sic). Most of those names were from divorce cases in which one of the parties accused the other of child abuse. What "declined at intake" means is that the case was duly investigated and found to be baseless. However, in running that lie of an ad, he published the names of the accused, which now means that all of those kids' friends know all about it now. Zavaletta had a duty to protect the identities of thse(sic) kids, but in his dash to lie about the current District Attorney, he showed that it is he himself who doesn't care about the children of the Valley. he showed that he's perfectly willing to sacrifice the innocent in order to get elected. Because knowingly breaching that confidentiality is a likely violation of the law, now the current DA has little choice other than to investigate his opponent during an election campaign. This kind of thing could only happen in the Valley. Has anybody actully(sic) bothered to look at Zavaletta's professional credentials? I doubt it. He is a civil attorney, not a criminal one. To my knowledge, he has never even handled a single criminal trial. What can he know about the running of the Office of district Attorney? Nothing, that's what. Not only does he not understand the office he's running for, he even doesn't understand the criminal system.

MOST are divorce cases? Who knows if that's accurate, but what if just ONE of them was a divorce case? Just one. You know, an ugly one; where unfounded accusations are flung from one of (or even both of) the parents. And law enforcement has/had NO CHOICE but to investigate it. And they found bupkis, nada, NO proof of abuse.

If that's the case, what's Peter done with his 2/26 ad? If that's the case, he's recklessly published the identities of FOLKS HERETOFORE PRESUMED INNOCENT AND UN-INDICTED. And he has the unmitigated gall to label Villalobos as "against our children"?

What. bizarro. county. do. we. live. in?

Tuesday, March 4th, folks. That's Primary Election Day.
Once could even say that it's INTAKE day for the DA position.

I urge each of you and all voters in our county:
DECLINE PETER ZAVALETTA AT INTAKE.

"The Closing Argument"

Union Endorses Non-Union Benefactor

So the Brownsville Union Coalition "endorsed" Zavaletta. Did they know, or even care, that their chosen one received campaign support from a firmly non-union company?

The International Longshoremen's Association is a coalition member of B.U.C. and it can be argued that the ILA's member wages have directly suffered for over a decade due to Gulf Stream's non-union stance.

Chalk it up to another case of Zavaletta's hypocrisy; this time emanating from both sides of his pro/anti-union mouth.

The Rest of the Story...

Click on the image to view the entire 3-page document in PDF form.

BH District Attorney Debate - February 11, 2008

February 11, 2008

The Shot Heard 'Round the Pizza Hut

Click here for an account of bribes, lies, partial lies, polygraph challenges, checks, audiotapes, & "prior commitments".

Cause# 88-CR-827-C

Click on the image to download the 33-page case file in PDF format.

District Attorney Candidate Forum - February 6, 2008

District Attorney Candidate Forum
Hosted by South Texans for Good Government
Brownsville Public Library - February 6, 2008

Mark Yates Plea a Done Deal?

Check out the Harlingen Post article for all the crazy details.

Turnabout Is Fair Play.

Disingenuousness Du Jour

Photo graciously submitted by anonymous "political outsider".

“I have not hired any politqueras(sic) and will not hire any politiqueras,” Zavaletta said.
Brownsville Herald, November 3, 2007

6,943 days late and $1 short

"I could’a been a contender. I could’a been somebody, instead of a bum -- which is what I am."
- Terry Malloy, On the Waterfront

If you blinked, you would've missed it. For just a few hours today, Texas Monthly Senior Executive Editor Paul Burka blew the whole Peter Zavaletta indictment WIDE OPEN.

19 years after the fact.

He was gently prodded of his tardiness in the comments section ("What an outrage!") and has since removed the post, replaced it with a retraction and named his article source... Dannenbaum Engineering! (My current employer, if you believe the hot-air).

This Day In History

Tired of the same old political news? Bored with the endless speculation over who's announcing for what judge's bench or how to sue the feds over a wall? Well then, time for a little diversion.

CB presents - This Day In History:

740 - An earthquake strikes Constantinople, causing much damage and death.
1774 - The first Continental Congress adjourns.
1905 - Norway becomes independent from Sweden.
1940 - The P-51 Mustang makes its maiden flight.
1944 - World War II: The Battle of Leyte Gulf ends.
1947 - The British Military Occupation ends in Iraq.
1951 - Boxer Joe Louis comes out of retirement to fight Rocky Marciano. However, Marciano would win the fight in eight rounds.
1984 - John D. McCollum shoots and kills himself after spending a day listening to Ozzy Osbourne records; a lawsuit is later filed by his parents over the song "Suicide Solution", but the case is eventually thrown out.
2001 - The United States passes the USA PATRIOT Act into law.

oh... and in 1988, Peter Zavaletta, future District Attorney candidate, is indicted in Brownsville.


Looks like the Herald had the same proof-reading problems back in the day, too. "Tony Zavaletta"?

Cameron County DA race

Better said elsewhere.