A Comity of Errors

Post subject: Here is the Opinion That Took 5 Years & STX Politics Dic Reply with quote
JUSTICE in incomplete and incompetent Opinion. We will be pointing out some things after we post the Motion For New trial Transcript. Where can we find a template for a Petition for Discretionary Review?





LEEANN HALEY, Appellant,



v.




THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Kleberg County, Texas.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Baird (1)



Appellant was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record. A jury convicted appellant of a lesser included misdemeanor offense and assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). This appeal follows an earlier abatement of these proceedings wherein we ordered the trial judge to appoint new counsel and permit appellant to file a motion for new trial. Currently, appellant raises three points of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Procedural Posture.

The State has not filed a reply brief. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.3, the State's reply brief is not required before we may consider and decide this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.3. When confronted with this situation, we treat the State's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Siverand v. State, 89 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). Pursuant to Siverand, we will make an independent examination of the merits of appellant's points of error and any opposing arguments are limited to those advanced by the State in the trial court. Id.

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Each point of error is centered around the trial judge's denial of appellant's motion for new trial, which raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The first point of error alleges the trial judge erred in denying the motion, and the second and third points of error raise the claims raised in the motion for new trial. As these points of error are intertwined, they will be considered jointly.

A. Authority.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must prove (1) that counsel's representation or advice fell below objective standards of reasonableness; and (2) the result of the proceeding would have been different but for trial counsel's deficient performance. Id. at 688-92. The defendant bears the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel "must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Generally, when the record is silent as to counsel's motivations for tactical decisions, an appellant cannot overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonable." Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

When claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are raised on appeal following the denial of a motion for new trial, we analyze the contentions as a challenge to the denial of that motion. Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In such circumstances, we review the Strickland test through an abuse of discretion standard and reverse only if the denial of the motion for new trial was arbitrary or unreasonable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that ruling. Id. at 208 (holding appropriate standard of review for ineffective assistance claim in motion for new trial is abuse of discretion).

B. Failure to Secure the Testimony of Mary Cano.

The second point of error contends counsel was ineffective in failing to call Mary Cano as a witness for appellant. Appellant's defensive theory at trial was that she did not knowingly make a false entry, namely that her husband was not employed, in a government record. This was the culpable mental state required to convict appellant of the lesser included offense. Appellant's theory was that Cano, with the Texas Workforce Commission, told appellant and her husband that her husband's position as a substitute school teacher was not considered employment. We reject this claim for two reasons.

First, as noted above, appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a record that "affirmatively demonstrate[s] the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. Therefore, in the context of this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must demonstrate what the testimony of Cano would have been. However, Cano did not testify at the motion for new trial hearing. At that hearing, the following exchange occurred:

MFNT COUNSEL (2): Can you say with any certainty what Ms. Cano's testimony would have been? (3)




APPELLANT: No, I don't know for sure what it would have been.




MFNT COUNSEL: Do you think if she had been brought in to testify that could have possibly changed the outcome of your trial?

APPELLANT: Yes.




MFNT COUNSEL: You think that possibly her testimony would have boosted your credibility with the jury.




APPELLANT: Yes.




At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel stated in her argument:




Your Honor, it appears that [appellant's] only viable defense was to have Mary Cano, this material witness, called, and although we cannot say with any certainty what she would have testified to, there is no evidence presented to you as to what, you know, that she would not have supported [appellant's] position . . . .




When considering claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts are not permitted to speculate about what evidence was not presented. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because the record does not affirmatively reflect what the testimony of Cano would have been, we hold appellant has failed in her burden of providing a record which "affirmatively demonstrate[s] the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813.

Second, even if we found the failure to secure the testimony of Cano to be deficient conduct on the part of trial counsel, we would then address Strickland's second prong and determine if the result of appellant's trial would have been different with Cano's testimony. In this analysis, we note that the essence of Cano's testimony was before the jury. Appellant's husband testified as follows:

Q. Did you tell the people at the Workforce that you were substitute teaching?




A. Yes, sir. I told Mary Cano. I called her by phone and I communicated to her that I didn't need to go to this workshop because I was substitute teaching.




Q. Did the Texas Workforce know you were substitute teaching?




A. Yes.




Q. Did they still insist on you coming to their workshops?




A. Yes, sir.




Q. What was their rationale for insisting that you come to the workshops?




A. She told me, Mary Cano told me she did not consider substitute teaching employment, that the Texas Workforce does not consider substitute teaching as employment.




Q. Is that because of the uncertainty of whether or not you are going to work?




A. She said, "you never know. They might not never call you again."




During appellant's direct examination, the following exchange occurred:




Q. Can you explain to the jury why [you filled out the form indicating your husband was not employed]?




A. Well, afer my husband had gotten a job, after the 13th we received a letter to go to the Texas Workforce meeting. Well, I called Mary Cano and I told her, I said, "My husband doesn't need to go to the meeting because he's substitute teaching," and well, first she says, she says -- I said, "my husband is working." She goes, "Well, what is he doing?" I said, "He's substitute teaching," and she goes, "[Appellant], the Texas Workforce does not consider substitute teaching as employment," ... (4)




In light of the foregoing testimony, we hold there is no showing that the result of appellant's trial would have been different but for trial counsel's failure to secure the testimony of Mary Cano. Therefore, the second prong of Strickland has not been satisfied. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-92.

For both of these reasons, the trial judge's denial of the motion for new trial on the basis of not securing the testimony of Mary Cano did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the second point of error is overruled.

C. Failure to Peremptorily Strike Veniremember Marilyn Lewis Ruff.

The second point of error contends trial counsel was ineffective for not peremptorily striking the second veniremember, Marilyn Lewis Ruff, who ultimately served as the foreperson of the jury. During voir dire, Ruff, a teacher's aide, was questioned by both the State and the defense on whether she knew appellant's husband, and whether she knew Chandra Lewis, a witness for the State. After this questioning, Ruff stated that her knowledge of either appellant's husband or Lewis would not affect her or prevent her from being impartial.

At the motion for new trial hearing, appellant testified that she expressed her concerns about Ruff to trial counsel and instructed counsel to peremptorily strike Ruff. To convey this, appellant "scratched out Ruff's name" and said, "I [don't] want her on my jury." However, trial counsel did not strike Ruff and she ultimately served as foreperson of appellant's jury.

We read this point of error as raising three separate arguments. First, appellant argues: "[appellant expressed her concern about Ms. Ruff's prejudice to counsel and counsel did nothing, failing to question Ms. Ruff about whether she had any bias or prejudice that would prevent her from being able to be a fair and impartial juror in this case . . . ." This argument is not supported by the record. As noted above, trial counsel individually questioned Ruff about whether she knew appellant's husband and, if so, whether that would affect her impartiality. Ruff answered in the negative.

Second, appellant argues "it was not reasonable under prevailing professional norms that counsel fail to use a peremptory strike against [Ruff] when counsel had strikes available." This argument is not supported by the record. The record reflects that counsel exercised his ten peremptory strikes and, therefore, did not have an available strike for Ruff.

Third, appellant argues that she scratched Ruff's "name off counsel's list of potential jurors indicating to counsel that she did not want Ms. Ruff to serve on her jury." However, we reviewed the original strike list in this case and Ruff's name is not scratched off nor are there marks indicating someone erased marks through Ruff's name. Consequently, this argument is not supported by the record.

Having rejected these three arguments, we overrule the third point of error.

D. Erroneous Denial of the Motion for New Trial.

The first point of error contends the trial judge erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial. In support of her argument, appellant relies upon the arguments advanced in sections B and C, supra. However, for the reasons noted above, those arguments are without merit. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Accordingly, the first point of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.




CHARLES F. BAIRD

Justice






Do Not Publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.




Opinion delivered and filed this

the 22nd day of November, 2006.

1. Former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to the government code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 2005).

2. This indicates appellant's counsel at the motion for new trial hearing, who was not appellant's counsel at trial.

3. All emphasis supplied by author unless otherwise indicated.

4. Only at this point did the State lodge a hearsay objection and that objection was sustained by the trial judge. However, the State did not make a motion to strike or request an instruction to disregard the testimony. Therefore, appellant's testimony prior to the State's objection is not denied probative value. Tex. R. Evid. 802 (inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay).[/code]
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: CAUSE NUMBER 01-CRF-211 Reply with quote
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS .
LEE ANN HALEY
REPORTER'S RECORD
CAUSE NUMBER 01-CRF-211
SUPPLEMENTAL VOLUME
j, IN THE OISTRICT COURT
*
j, KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS
*
* 105TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
F I L E D
IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTI
MAY 1 82004
CATHY WI LB-CLERK
BY
~ * On the 6th day of May, 2004, t h e above e n t i t l e d and
Reported by Machine Shorthand.
ORIGINAL


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
THE COURT: The Court calls 01-CRF-211, State of
Texas Vs. Lee Ann Haley.
MS. WILLIAMS: We're ready.
THE COURT: All right. Do you expect to call
witnesses, Mr. Isassi?
MR. ISASSI: I don't know which motion we're
going on. I don't know --
THE COURT: Motion for New trial.
MR. ISASSI: I never got a copy of it. The only
one I received was Mr. -- the lawyer who withdrew.
THE COURT: That's the motion that is --
MR. ISASSI: I never got served a copy of it. I
never got a copy of that motion period.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is correct. We're
proceeding on Mr. Collina's motion that was filed March 22nd.
THE COURT: That's the motion before the Court.
MR. ISASSI: We were never served a copy.
THE COURT: Well, we called the case last week.
Did you look at the file to get a copy?
MR. ISASSI: I did, Your Honor but, again, I was
not properly served with it.
THE COURT: And did you get a copy?
MR. ISASSI: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Did you look through the file?
MR. ISASSI: I looked through the file.
THE COURT: Did you see it there?
MR. ISASSI: I saw it in there.
THE COURT: Well, did you make a copy for
yourself?
MR. ISASSI: No, Your Honor. We have not gotten
properly served. No, I did not make a copy.
THE COURT: Well, then we'll proceed anyway.
MR. ISASSI: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Myart, we will need Counsel
table, please.
MR. Myart: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: We'll need Counsel table.
MR. Myart: Oh, yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you're proceeding on the Motion
for New Trial that was filed March 22, 2004 signed by Mr.
Collina, is that right?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct, Your Honor. I do
just anticipate calling Ms. Haley as a witness this morning.
THE COURT: Very well.
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe that Mr. Jimenez
is here. I didn't make attempts to call him here this morning
for the ineffective assistance of counsel.
THE COURT: Very well. You may proceed.
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, as I said earlier,
I'm Jill Williams representing Lee Ann Haley. We're here on a
Motion for New Trial hearing. Mr. Collina was allowed to
withdraw on April 23, and I was appointed at that time to
represent Mrs. Haley, and there is somewhat of a housekeeping
issue, Your Honor, that I just want to clear up for the record.
There was somewhat of a discussion that Mrs. Haley filed an
amended Motion for New Trial or that there was other
documentation filed in this case that it was somewhat of a
supplemental affidavit to the Motion for New Trial is what it
appears to be to me. We are this morning going to limit the
issues to what is necessary to develop the Motion for New Trial
on the ineffective assistance claim this morning for the
purposes for this hearing.
THE COURT: Very well.
MS. WILLIAMS: And I would like to call Mrs. Lee
Ann Haley.
THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, would you come
forward, please. Would you take the oath.
(Oath administered. )
THE COURT: Would you take the witness chair
right over there. Would you adjust the mike close to you so we
can hear you. Go ahead.
LEE ANN HALEY,
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WILLIAMS:
Q. You're Lee Ann Haley, is t h a t correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. M s . Haley, M r . Collina had f i l e d a Motion for New
Trial on your behalf on March 22 of 2004, is t h a t correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You had also f i l e d an amended Motion for New T r i a l
pro se before M r . Collina was allowed t o withdraw from the
case, is t h a t correct?
A. That's correct. I had -- Go ahead.
Q. A t t h a t time t h a t was before I was appointed --
A. Yes.
Q -- as your attorney?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your main point was s t i l l t h a t your t r i a l
attorney was i n e f f e c t i v e i n a s s i s t i n g you i n your t r i a l , is
t h a t correct?
A. T h a t ' s c o r r e c t .
Q. Okay, so l e t ' s s t a r t with t h a t , Lee Ann. You
understand some of the issues i n your Motion for New T r i a l and
your amended a f f i d a v i t or the supplemented a f f i d a v i t you
provided, they may be issues t h a t have legal validation that
w i l l be adddressed on appeal?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. So the only issues we're going to address today are
those relevant to this hearing today and necessary to develop
the record for the ineffective assistance claim, do you
understand that?
A, That's correct,
Q. Okay. Who was your trial attorney?
A. Fred Jimenez.
Q. And in your Motion for New Trial you contend that
Fred Jimenez was ineffective for failing to call or timely
subpoena %Mary Cano?
A. That's correct.
Q. Who you had indicated you would want to have called
as a witness in your case, is that correct?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And did Mary Cano work for the _-- Texas Workforce
Commission at the time you were charged with the offense?
A. Yes,she--
Q. Is that your understanding?
A. She started the Texas Workforce Commission here in
Kingsville,
Q. Did you discuss the strategy of calling Mrs. Cano as
---C_
a witness with your trial attorney?
A. Well, yes. He knew all along he was supposed to
subpoena her. I thought she had been subpoenaed the whole
time.
Q. What do you feel made Mary Cano a critical witness in
/ -
your case?
A. Well, she -- I had conversations with her pertaining
to my husband's work, and she reported to the DHS that my
husband wasn't working and that he wasn't complying with the
Texas Workforce Commission regulations, so they penalized us on
our public benefits.
Q. Did you have an idea from the beginning what you
wanted your trial strategy to be --
A. Yes.
Q -- where Mrs. Cano was concerned?
7--
A. I wanted her to say what she told me, our
conversations.
Q. Did you discuss this with your trial counsel?
A. Yes,Idid.
Q. Can you say with any certainty what Mrs. Cano's
testimony would have been?
A. No, I don't know for sure what it would have been.
Q. Do you think if she had been brought in to testify,
that could have possibly changed the outcome of your trial?
A. Yes.
Q. You think that possibly her testimony would have
boosted your credibility with the jury?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Jirnenez do other things you wanted him to do
for your defense?
A. Well, I asked him to -- I told him that I didn't want
that one juror on my jury.
Q. Well, I'll get into that, but basically what I'm
saying is he did other things that you were satisfied with as
far as your defense in this case, is that correct?
A. Some things, yes, but like there was a couple of
critical things that I wanted him to do that he did not do.
Q. Did he tell you why Mary Cano was not produced for ----- -- -_
trial?
A. Well, no. I assumed it was because she didn't get
subpoenaed until the day of the trial.
Q. And your argument is that you wanted her for a
defense to basically an ultimate issue in your case, is that
correct?
A. Right. Well, to -- I was going by what she had --
What I had learned from her. She told me that --
MR. ISASSI: Your Honor, objection to hearsay.
THE COURT: All right. Your response to the
objection? 3
a
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, it's not going to the
.c--.-.----___
truth of the matter asserted. Just basically what I'm asking =--- - r d
for the purpose of ineffective assistance is if Mr. Jimenez
knew why she wanted Mrs. Cano there, why she was a critical
----*
witness in her case. I think it's proper to be admitted for
the purpose of this hearing.
MR. ISASSI: Your Honor, there is no idea what
Mrs. Cano would have testified to, and to bring that up now is
just not right, and it's hearsay. It goes to the truth of the
matter asserted. This is what her whole argument is, that he
was ineffective for not calling this witness, and now she's
going to elicit this is what she would have said and this is
why he's ineffective. It's not true. It's pure hearsay.
MS. HALEY: -Mrs. --
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will rephrase the
question. What I'm trying to get at is --
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Ma'am, let me just give you a couple
of rules. When there's an objection, that is addressed to me.
You cannot say anything on that matter because it is a legal
issue that I must decide. Do you understand that, ma'am?
MS. HALEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. You may
answer the question now.
A. Mrs. Cano had been my Texas Workforce advisor since
1997. When I first met her she told me that I was going to
have --
MR. ISASSI: Your Honor, objection to
nonresponsive. She answered the question. It's nonresponsive.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MS. WILLIAMS: We'll move on, Your Honor.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) Do you know if Mr. Jimenez or any
of his investigators or assistants had made any contact at all
with Mary Cano before your trial?
A. No, not that I'm aware of.
Q. Do you believe that she was available to testify, the
problem may have been she just was not subpoenaed in time for
your trial? Is that your understanding?
A. I guess. I mean, if they couldn't find her, but I'm
sure if they really wanted her, they could have found her.
Q. Did Mr. Jimenez at any time ask for a continuance to
be allowed time to get her served?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did he ask for any prior continuances in your case?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time I would
like to ask the Court to take judicial notice of the subpoena.
I believe that Mr. Collina had attempted to also subpoena
Cano for the purposes of the Motion for New Trial hearing and
s1".--"-.
that subpoena was returned unserved in the file. I believe I
saw it there. I would just ask for the Court to take judicial
notice of its own file in that matter.
THE COURT: I see the application or a copy of
an application for the supoena. I don't see -- I don't see a
return indicating one thing or another about it. Did you see
the return yourself?
MS. WILLIAMS: I thought that I saw it there,
Your Honor. It may have been the application also that I was
looking at. If I may, I'll just proceed with questioning Ms.
Kaley regarding her knowledge of that.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) Ms. Haley, do you have knowledge
that Joe Collina tried to subpoena Mrs. Cano for the purposes
of the new trial?
MS. ISASSI: I object to this line of
questioning. This is the ineffective assistance of Mr.
Jimenez, not Mr. Collina, and I don't know why we're getting
into this for appellate purposes and we're only going back to
the trial setting. I want to object to the relevance of this
questioning.
THE COURT: Your response?
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the relevancy is the
purpose of the ineffective was failure to call this witness.
What I'm trying to develop here is that why she wasn't there
then and why she's not here today. We don't have any other way
to develop the testimony without her present.
THE COURT: A11 right. I'll overrule the
objection. Do you remember the question, ma'am?
(Witness shakes head in the negative.)
L
THE COURT: Would you state the question again.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) Do you have knowledge that Mr.
Collina had tried to subpoena Mary Cano for the purposes of the
,-- - - - - .---
new trial hearing that was previously set?
A. Yes, but he was -- He said that he gave it to Mr.
Bautista, a officer in Nueces County, to serve her and he said
that it was --
MR. ISASSI: Objection to hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.
A. I have an e-mail where he stated that he had done
that that I submitted to the Court already.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) And did I, did we talk and I
explain that I tried to follow up on that and I was unable to
locate -M-r--s -.--- - C ano as well?
A. That's correct.
Q. T-h.a t I was told by the Texas Workforce Commission she .----__7---
no longer worked these?
MR. ISASSI: Objection. Counsel is testifying,
Your Honor. I'm going to object. She's to ask questions, Your
Honor. She's testifying. I want to object to the form of the
question.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll rephrase the question.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) Did I tell you that I was unable
to locate Mr-"s ...--- Cano, that she would not be available to testify
at the Motion for New Trial hearing today?
A. Yes, youdid.
Q. Were you ever provided with any other information
regarding her whereabouts?
A. Yes, she's -- She's the executive vice-president for
the Upper Rio Grande Valley Texas Workforce Commission-Private
Sector.
Q. Do you know exactly where her location is?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Where she's working at this time?
A. No, I don't. We attempted to e-mail her through the
TWC, and we got a warning, and a return, unreturned mail.
MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, since Mr. Jimenez is
not present today, this -- Ms. Haley's testimony is all I have
on the issue of his failure to call Mary Cano as a witness. We
/--
do have another ground, however, for ineffective assistance.
If you would like, I can move into that at this time or
allow -- .
THE COURT: That's fine. Continue your
examination.
Q. (By Ms. Williams) Ms. Haley, you have also alleged
that your trial counsel was ineffective for failing to strike a
juror. She was a Mrs. Marilyn Lewis Ruff, is that correct? .A v-
--v
A. That's correct.
Q. And his failure to strike her from the list of
potential jurors you have alleged was ineffective assistance of
counsel on his part?
A. Yes, that's correct. She --
Q. Hold on. Let me ask you a question.
A. Okay.
Q. Did you express to your trial counsel your concerns
about Mrs. Ruff being chosen for your jury?
A. Well, before that I told him I didn't want her on my
jury. I told him I, you know, I knew we had ten strikes and,
you know, I wanted him to use one of them to make sure she was
not there.
? Q. What did you ask him to do?
A. I scratched out her name. I told him I didn't want
her on my jury.
"7 Q. What did he do?
A. He got mad at me for scratching her name out, and he
allowed her to be on my jury and she became the foreman.
Q. Did you feel like her becoming the foreman of the
jury or the foreperson of the jury had a direct affect on the
outcome of your case?
A. Yes, I do.
? Q. How so?
f
A. Well, she's a biased person. I subsequently found
out that she has made -- Well, I can't say what she said, but
people have told me that she has made numerous, I mean --
MR. ISASSI: Objection. Hearsay, nonresponsive.
She answered the question and is going on i n t o a n a r r a t i v e .
Again, o b j e c t i o n .
MS. WILLIAMS: I w i l l ask her a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n .
THE COURT: Go ahead.
3 Q. (By M s . Williams) I ' m j u s t asking you what you base
the f a c t t h a t you asked him t o s t r i k e her, what do you base
t h a t on t h a t took place a t Voir Dire?
A. She was giving me d i r t y looks. She was. I j u s t
d i d n ' t -- I d i d n ' t g e t -- I d i d n ' t l i k e her, I guess.
Q. Were t h e r e any s p e c i f i c questions t h a t he asked her
,,,,.~-<-,-,,,,,--- - ,.,-*- --- --- - -- --- ' ,*- '----x - - *---" - -+--.-------I t h a t a l e r t e d you t o the f a c t she may be biased i n t h i s case? A. W e l l , she had s a i d t h a t she d i d n ' t know my husband i n Voir Dire, and when my husband showed up l a t e r , he s a i d t h a t he knew her, t h a t he had worked with her, t h a t she had asked him t o wipe a boy's diaper a t work. You know, she worked i n self,-contained, and he s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e sometimes, but he was i n another room and she had come t o h i s room and asked h i m t o change a l i t t l e b o y ' s d i a p e r , but he was, l i k e , 15. MR. ISASSI: Objection t o n a r r a t i v e and nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (By M s . Williams) Was -- Was your t r i a l Counsel aware of t h i s a t the time t h a t he was making s t r i k e s and she was on the jury? A. He was aware that I didn't want her on my jury. I didn't know at the time that she had worked with my husband. I didn't know -- She said she knew my -- She had seen him there, but she didn't know -- She knew of him, but that she had never worked with him. That's what she stated in Voir Dire. Q. Do you think that your trial attorney should have explored the line of questioning regarding her knowing your husband? Do you think he should have gone into that? Would you have been more satisfied with that? A. No, I didn't want her on my jury. Q. Okay, but what I'm asking you is do you think that he should have explored questioning her more thoroughly on her -- A. Right, yes. Q -- relationship with your husband and having known him? A. Yes, and working at the same school he worked with and working for the same school district and why she was even there. Q. Do you feel like your trial counsel was ineffective for failing to strike her? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you think that due to his failure to strike her, that but for that error, the outcome of your trial might have been different? A. Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Go ahead. CROSS EXAMINATION Q. You have alleged other failures and omissions by your trial counsel that affected the outcome of your case? A. Yes, I have. Q. Do you understand that for the purposes of this Motion for New Trial and this hearing today, those two grounds were included in your affidavit supporting your Motion for New Trial? MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'll pass the witness at this time. BY MR. ISASSI: Q. Ms. Haley, how -- Did you hire Mr. Jimenez or was he appointed to you? What -- How did you get his services? A. On April 20th I had a status hearing for a case within which I was denied counsel which I sought counsel from him. Q. Excuse me. I'm asking -- A. That's how he came about to be my lawyer. Q. Did you hire him or was he appointed? That's the question. A. Neither. I went to him. I went to him because I needed counsel. Q. So you didn't pay him anything? A. No, I did not. Q. He was appointed by t h e Court? A. No, he was not. H e was a f r i e n d . Q. Did it pro bono? A. Y e s . Q. You're a l l e g i n g t h a t he was i n e f f e c t i v e i n c e r t a i n d u t i e s t h a t he has. A r e you t r a i n e d as a, i n t h e l e g a l profession? Yes or no q u e s t i o n . A. No. Q. Do you know h i s t r i a l s t r a t e g y ? A. T h a t ' s s u b j e c t i v e , i s n ' t i t ? Q. I ask the questions, ma'am. Did you know h i s t r i a l s t r a t e g y ? A. No. Q. Do you know i f he used o t h e r s t r i k e s o r s t r i k e s f o r cause o r f o r peremptory challenges during h i s Voir D i r e s e l e c t i o n ? A. I b e l i e v e he was -- There w a s a double s t r i k e on one j u r o r . Q. So he did use some s t r i k e s , is t h a t c o r r e c t ? A. There was a double s t r i k e on one. Q. I ' m asking the q u e s t i o n . Did he -- To your knowledge, he used c e r t a i n s t r i k e s ? A. No, t h e r e was no s t r i k e s . Q. Are you c e r t a i n ? A. Positive. Q. You were tried here in Kleberg County by a jury of your peers, is that correct? A. No, they were not my peers. Q. They were not your peers? Are you superior to them? How were they not your peers? A. They were all older than me. Q. Isee. A. One of them fell asleep. MR. ISASSI: Your Honor, there's no question, Your Honor. It's nonresponsive. THE COURT: Ask a question. Q. (By Mr. Isassi) You had a, I guess, a rocky relationship with all your lawyers, is that correct? It's a yes or no question. A. No. Q. Mr. Collina, your attorney who was appointed by this Court to represent you, you didn't have a falling out or did not see eye to eye? A. Heliedtome. Q. Did Mr. Jimenez lie to you? A. No, he ignoredme. Q. He ignored you? You say he was ineffective in that he did not subpoena Mrs. Cano with the Texas Department of *.L Human Services or whatever agency she worked for. A. She works for the Texas Workforce Commission which heads up the DHS. Q. If you were so adamant that you needed her, you didn't go out and get her yourself? A. She has been hiding for awhile. Q. How do you know that? A. Because she was so available before when I needed her. Q. You did a lot of leg work on your own in this appeal, is that correct? A. Of what I can do, yes. Q. You also assisted Mr. Jimenez with your defense, correct? . A. No, not really. I thought he was -- I thought he could handle it. Q. It's your opinion he didn't? J A. Obviously not. Q. Because you were convicted? A. No, because he didn't listen to me when I asked him to strike a juror that I didn't want on my jury and when I asked him to have Mary Cano there and she wasn't there. It's a little basic, I think. MR. ISASSI: Your Honor, I'm going to ask that be stricken. There's no question posed to the witness. THE COURT: Overruled. h Q. (By Mr. Isassi) Just because you didn't get your way is why he's ineffective, is that bottom line? A. Excuse me? Q. Just because you didn't win at trial, didn't get your way, didn't have a juror strucken (sic) or didn't get Mary Cano here is why you're upset, correct? A. Everybody doesn't get what they want. Q. Really? MR. ISASSI: No further questions. THE COURT: Any Redirect? MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, just a couple of questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILLIAMS: Q. Lee Ann, were you able to make suggestions to your trial attorney as to how you wanted him to handle your defense? A. Yes. Q. And did he -- You discussed the strategy with him as well? t A. Well, I told him that I wanted Mary Cano there. I mean, I thought that was the strategy and, you know, I guess -- Q. But he didn't do that, correct? A. Not in time, I guess, because he only subpoenaed her the first day of trial, and he knew all along we needed her, but I guess it costs money. MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I have nothing further. Defense would rest at this time, but I would like to provide argument to support the motion. THE COURT: All right. Any evidence? MR. ISASSI: No evidence, Your Honor, just argument at the appropriate time. THE COURT: You may step down, Ms. Haley. MS. HALEY: Thank you. THE COURT: I'll hear your argument, Ms. Williams. MS. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, it appears that Ms. Haley's only viable defense in the case was to have had -Mary Cano, this material witness, called, and although we cannot say L>" --"4
with any certainty what she would have testified to, there is
no evidence presented as to what, you know, that she would not
have supported Mrs. Haley's position, and just the fact that
Mrs. Haley testified she could have boosted her credibility
with her jury and indicated that her failure to report this
substitute teaching money as employment income which I believe
is the basis of the offense that was brought against her, I
believe that this certainly makes Mrs. Cano a material witness
.- 1-
that was critical to her defense and that her failure to be
called was, did rise to the level of ineffective assistance on
the part of trial counsel and, Your Honor, it's our position
that where there is a material witness and she's available, and
it's plausible that witness could have testified and there is I
no evidence supporting or refuting that and specifically giving I Mrs. Haley credibility with her jury and possibly having a
--... ------"------ - -- -4
different outcome in this case, that it is ineffective
assistance for counsel not to have called her and, in addition, I Your Honor, regarding the juror that in turn ended up as the I foreperson on the jury, Mrs. Haley testified that she, for
--q*_c.-."
whatever reason, the line of questioning was not developed.
She asked trial counsel to strike her. I believe there was a I strike available to do that. She ended up being the foreperson
'""I
on the jury that convicted Ms. Haley, sand I believe that this
--"we
was a fatal error on trial counsel's part that rose to the I
level of ineffective assistance as well, and over all, Your
Honor, I believe that but for these errors of trial counsel, I the outcome of this proceeding or her trial could have been I
different, and we would ask for the Court to grant the Motion I for New Trial at this time.
,
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Isassi?
MR. ISASSI: Yes, Your Honor. Again, this.case I first and foremost, the Rules of Appellate Procedure require I Defendant to file a notice within 30 days. I know the Court of I Appeals allowed her that 30 days since the date of February I
Motion was filed on March 22. I believe we're coming I I close to the 75 days to have the hearing. Your Honor, in this I
case she was tried by a jury of her peers in Kleberg County
before this Court. She had counsel of her choice, Mr. Fred
Jimenez, who's a practitioner of law for a number of years who
has tried many criminal cases in his past and I believe a state
jail felony offense was well within his realm of expertise.
He, obviously, sought the jury and had certain jury strategies.
The fact that Ms. Haley did not get her way as she adamantly
says that everyone should get their way does not rise to the
ineffective assistance of counsel of Mr. Jimenez.
MS. WILLIAMS: I object, Your Honor. That was
not in evidence.
MR. ISASSI: This is my argument.
THE COURT: Let me hear the objection.
MS. WILLIAMS: That was not in evidence that Ms.
Haley said that everyone should get their way. I believe her
testimony was that not everyone gets their way. -. - - ->" * - - - - < THE COURT: I remember the evidence. Go ahead. MR. ISASSI: Again, Your Honor, Ms. Haley chose Mr. Jimenez to represent her. He's a competent attorney in Nueces County, a member in good standing in the Bar, has trie,d cases before this Honorable Court in many instances. The fact that Ms. Haley was convicted of this offense does not rise to the effect to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Jimenez' trial strategy may be, I don't know, it's his trial strategy. He -- The fact that he did not call or try to call Mrs. Cano, and Mrs. Cano is an outstanding member of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 1 24 25 26 community. She's -- Her husband is one of our principals, and she's not hiding out, as Ms. Haley testified to. I can -- I know personally I can pick up the phone and call her and get her here if she needs to be here. She's a respected woman in this community, and I believe it was trial strategy on the part of Mr. Jimenez. The fact Ms. Haley also raises her issue that well, he should have struck Mrs. Ruff, again, Your Honor, I believe Mr. Jimenez exercised some strikes and, again, does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. We're asking this motion be denied and that the judgment entered against her be upheld. THE COURT: Ms. Williams, you have the right to close. MS. WILLIAMS: Just a couple of things, Your Honor. Just in response, no matter how good of an attorney you I are, and I agree, Mr. Jimenez has a good reputation, there are things that are -- You can fail to investigate, and there is -- If you haven't fully investigated and there's a witness who's available that you didn't know about or you failed to use due diligence to investigate to get that witness to trial, if -that may have changed the outcome of the trial, that still rises to the level of ineffective assistance, and it has been held by the Court of Criminal Appeals that you do have a right to grant Mrs. Haley a trial if you find that did so happen, and we ask for the Motion for New Trial to be granted on those 'grounds, Your Honor. THE COURT: The Court w i l l deny the Motion f o r New T r i a l . I w i l l d i r e c t the reporter t o prepare a record of t h i s hearing and w i l l send the complete record back t o the Court of Appeals pursuant t o its order. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. (End of hearing. ) & _________________ "Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: Then one day at lunch they came to my house and took her to Reply with quote
Tampering with ........
6/10/2005 12:41 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a government document with intent to defraud & harm. A state jail felony 2 years in prison. I will tell you the details slowly. First, my family was on welfare. I took care of the kids while my wife earned her degree at A&I. Mary Cano the TWC Executive vice president worked directly with us. Then My wife graduated and started looking for a job. She used the TWC fax to send resumes and such. She interviewed for a job at EZ Pawn for the regional auditor. She was awarded the job and then they said they could not hire her because something came out of Austin that said they could not hire her. Austin is the EZ Pawn headquarters as well as the TWC. So I started Substitute teaching. Mary Cano sent me a outreach letter requiring me to attend an orientation. We called MRs Cano and told her that I was already working as a Substitute teacher. Mrs Cano insisted that I attend the orientation or she would be forced to penalize my family. She said, "Mrs Haley the Texas Workforce Does not recognize substitute teaching as employment." I argued with her to no avail. Then I clarified. I asked her if I was going to be penalized for being unemployed cuz substitute teaching is not considered employment then I should not need to count that income as income from employment, I reasoned that they could not be penalized for being unemployed while at the same time counting the income as money from employment. I worked one day in the first pay period. The net was $45. The taxes, social Security and Medicaid were deducted and I received ~$37. My wife made an entry in the application stating I had received "no money from work". This is what they prosecuted her for. We were becoming self sufficient as in the following months I began to work as did she. Then one day at lunch they came to my house and took her to jail.
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: Why did they not get her to court under the Subpoenas? Reply with quote
I can -- I
know personally I can pick up the phone and call her and get
her here if she needs to be here.
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Political Manipulation / Retaliation on the Part of Baird and Hinojosa. Also, Rene Rodriguez (wife 13th COA Justice), Gsanger (Sandra Foy is clerk 13th Coa)

J. F. Kenedeno hide details 12/10/06
to
Cathy Wilborn ,
Roberto.Garza@txdps.state.tx.us
cc























rangers@txdps.state.tx.us,
caesare.peterson@txdps.state.tx.us,
CARL.NEWSTROM@txdps.state.tx.us,
angie.stabeno@txdps.state.tx.us,
Rick.Kautz@txdps.state.tx.us,
webmaster@sos.state.tx.us,
webmaster@hhsc.state.tx.us,
chris.cregeen@dshs.state.tx.us,
mimi.mckay@dshs.state.tx.us,
wendy.cook@dshs.state.tx.us,
Thormahlen@dshs.state.tx.us,
WebAdmin@soah.state.tx.us,
machelle.pharr@dshs.state.tx.us,
dannoynted1@gmail.com,
joeaortiz@yahoo.com,
"Solomon Ortiz Jr." ,
solomon.ortiz@mail.house.gov,
solomon.p.ortiz@mail.house.gov,
cathy.travis@mail.house.gov,
chodosh@msn.com,
Jaime Kenedeno ,
abel.herrero@roystonlaw.com,
abel.herrero@state.tx.us,
CCLC Carlos Aguinaga ,
hmorales@grandenet.com
bcc


defensornews@yahoo.com,
fred@fjimenezlaw.com,
angelica@kratzig.com
date Dec 10, 2006 9:42 AM
subject Email Proof of Justice Hinojosa's bias in LeeAnn Haley's Appeal NO. 13-02-00033-CR
mailed-by gmail.com

Images from this sender are always displayed. Don't display from now on.























Kenedeno & Associates

Public Policy Advocates

LeeAnn Haley

4910 Lavaca

Corpus Christi, TX 78411

-------------------------------------

(361) 851-2851 (361) 658-3015







Anton S Haley

Advocate General





LeeAnn Rodriguez Haley

Founder

























December 10, 2006





Cathy Wilborn Clerk

13th Court of Appeals

Nueces County Courthouse

901 Leopard

Corpus Christi, TX 78411



Re: LeeAnn Haley NO. 13-02-00033-CR



Dear Ms.Wilborn:



This letter is to inform you of an official request for a thorough in depth investigation into this "Comedy of Errors" from the beginning. We are submitting evidence, Email Proof of Justice Hinojosa's bias in LeeAnn Haley's Appeal NO. 13-02-00033-CR. This email is being forwarded to the Texas Rangers and the DOJ.

Please take this email seriously as we will continue the information campaign in the interest of justice for LeeAnn Haley.



Thank you for your attention to this matter.

,

Respectfully,



LeeAnn Haley

Human Rights Advocate

Kenedeno & Associates


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaime Kenedeno
Date: Dec 10, 2006 8:37 AM
Subject: Fwd: Lets start all over again
To: kenedenonews@gmail.com



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaime Kenedeno
Date: Oct 24, 2006 2:33 AM
Subject: RE: Lets start all over again
To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com
Cc: dannoynted1@hotmail.com , kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com

OK Joe, Hinojosa does not need us to hammer Rose and Fil to prevail in this
election. If I open up this can of worms it will lead straight to Solomon
Grande and Jr as well. Is this the objective? At this time I probably have
the punch to knock em down but the problem is they will get back up. There
is much more to come with these guys and the Velas will survive the
information release given that they dont have a chance of winning this
election anyways. I can point out the children flaw and for that matter that
he donated money to these two Congressmen with questionable character
however it will tie in CC DISTRIBUTORS and all that that entails. If your
objective is to insure a Federico victory this is not required but if your
objective is to Delay the MACHINE I doubt we have the horsepower as of yet.
John Kelley is the man for this JOB. Thank you for the vote of confidence.
Jaime


>From: "Corpus Guerilla" < cc_guerilla@hotmail.com>
>To: dannoynted1@hotmail.com, kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com
>Subject: Lets start all over again
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:52:36 -0500
>
>daannointed...I don't know what happened to the first anonymous emails I
>sent you. It might have something to do with the "free trial" aspects of
>that site I sent it from.
>
>kingal...I know all about Mikal Watts and his contributions. But he hasn't
>drawn my interest as of yet. One step at a time.
>
>Now I'm addressing both of you at the same time.
>
>My gameplan as of the moment are the Velas.
>
>There's little necessary to know about me other than I'm sick and tired of
>all of these petite tyrants and living under these BS haciedanistas under
>what they all ... demo and repub alike ... assume us to be ... mere peons
>or campesinos. I'll entertain any reasonable questions from you if this
>doesn't suffice.
>
>My plan is to show the Velas for what they are.
>
>By now you've seen Rose's TV commercial. Kids, adoptions in her court,
>blah blah blah. Now how do you feel the attachment plays into that from a
>political perspective? It can be found right on her courtroom door. Here
>it is again.
>
>kingal...the pressure point on filemon is his affiliation with those two
>other politicians. However, it's a MUCH BIGGER pressure point and
>monkeywrench to toss into Rose's works. Don't you think it's a political
>liability to have a husband that financially supports an unindicted
>co-conspirator in Hunter, and a sleave like Menendez who's under federal
>investigation for financial hanky-panky?I seriously doubt the voters would
>be happy with that if they knew...and that's where you two bloggers come
>in. I don't have that kind of access. Nor do I want it. I'm doing other
>things in conjunction with all this to torpedo their ship. All with the
>Velas is definitely NOT what it appears to be. Enough said on that.
>
>I have information...you two have the access. It's that simple. Just say
>I'm a little more action orientated at a different level...not
>higher...just different.
>
>Also kingal...Rose has a higher agenda other than just the 13th Appeals
>Court as I'm sure you must be aware of. If her boat sinks here and now her
>other asperations go the way of the dodo as well.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Add a Yahoo! contact to Windows Live Messenger for a chance to win a free
>trip!
> http://www.imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/yahoo/default.aspx?locale=en-us&hmtagline


><<>>

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more?then map the best
route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT'S PERSONAL!

From: Jaime Kenedeno
To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com
CC: kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com, dannoynted1@hotmail.com
Date: Oct 22 2006 - 10:52pm
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT'S PERSONAL! Menendez is supported by Mikal as well. I
am not "IN THE KNOW" when it comes to National Politics and the networking.
It does not appear that Fil gave a very significant amount. What is or where
is the pressure point?

PS: you can email the pictures to kenedeno@yahoo


>From: "Corpus Guerilla "
>To: dannoynted1@hotmail.com, kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com
>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:54:12 -0500
>
>I have sent you both earlier today an anonymous email and am having another
>one sent by a trsuted friend with either an embedded photo of Rose Vela's
>No Children Allowed posting on her courtroom door and where to find some
>VERY intersting info regarding Filemondid or do not get these items,
>contact me back here and I'll resend using this email address.
>
>I'm on your side, but for personal reasons, not political. You will see
>this in the coming days...
>
Re: I am intrigued

From: Jaime Kenedeno
To: Corpus Guerilla
CC: dannoynted1 , kenedenonews@gmail.com, Jaime Kenedeño < kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 28 2006 - 3:36pm
DAMN SURE taught me not to take any ---- and to keep > some > figurative brass knuckles in my backpocket...just in case. But then too I > was raised in a city at a time when concepts of "fair" and "right" were > pretty much subjective and governed by the almighty 11th > Commandment. Thou > shalt not get caught. Then, a war came along in my life and rearranged > all > that and opened my eyes a little wider at the ways of the world. Oh, yes > indeed...the good guys win...but the bad guys win more often and also have > incredible staying power. > > Truly, we could have quite a long exchange and philosophical debate on the > merits and pitfalls of playing fair, cheating, unconventional warfare, and > so on down the line, but at the end of the day it'll all come down to what > a > person believes, what they want or like, and how prepared and willing they > are to achieve whatever ends their means are prepared to engage, fair or > otherwise. > > ALWAYS remember this...the other guy is as convinced of his moral position > (even if you think it's immoral) and stance as you are of yours and his > concepts of what's right and fair rivals that of your own...the ONLY thing > that differs is the objective. > > dannoynted1: > > Who says you play fair? kingal just did...though he may just have been > referring to himself. Would you care for some objective observations? I > have NO political axe to grind. None. I told kingal not all that long > ago > as I am as apolitical as they come. I have never voted in my life. My > ideas of politics were formed many years ago as a teenager not unlike the > kind of political education that our troops in Iraqi are receiving right > now > and I dare say a relative few of them will follow in my path career and > philosophic-wise as every war produces people like me. It's like service > to > king and country...and then at some point one euphemistically > "turns-the-guns-around" and ply your knowledge and skills to those that do > the highest bidding and who you HOPE you can align yourself with morally > and > philosophically. Luckily I've been able to do the latter consistently and > feel good about myself and sleep at night. hahahahahahahaha Now onto > those > objective observations... > > To understand this you need to know I'm not South Texas born nor bred. > Where I come from people tend to indulge politics as a kind of contact > sport > and chess combined where everybody has their own rule book that constantly > being revised and rewritten as they go along and where also the rules are > for the fools, suckers and uninitiated. As people, I don't even like > politicians. As a group they would not be my first choice for social > company and cavorting with socially under most circumstances. Personally > I'd just as soon find a bunch of juvenile deliquents to play with...at > least > they're younger and not full-blown liars and theives, yet. Politicians > are > for the most part frontmen as the power lies behind the thrown, not upon > it. > News this isn't. That said... > > Corpus Christi is much like a big hacienda environment pre-Mexican > Revolution 1913-1923 with Don Ortiz as the resident fat cat of all the > lesser dons. No news here either and I have no axe to grind with him...he > is what he is and gets his marching orders from God's mouth to everyone > elses ears during the various ring kissing ceremonies he holds to dispense > various political and monetary (if indeed there's any difference) slices > of > pie. Democrat and Republican? Ha. Same duck, different quack. Why the > masses all over the USA haven't picked up that both parties are > fundementally in cahoots with one another amazes the living ---- out of > me. > A nation of ostriches, but I digress. > > CC from my vantage point operates on the old English concept of the shire > reeves and fifedom folly and I mean from CC down to Brownsville. By Texas > standards it's small...reeeeeeeally small-time. You ought to see how they > pull ---- in Houston or Dallas, and New York and LA are like other > planets! > BuThat was good. I found a few little tokens I wrote back in early June and thought it might be pertinent to your quest. Here is a chunk of it below: Friday, June 02, 2006 Will a Sea Man on Cruise Control Ignore a District 32 Electorate Demanding A Debate with Aviator Juan Garcia? Will he commit today or will he Delay, Delay, Delay? In an Enron sort of way will he run from his distict from the beach to the bay? Word on Ocean Drive has it he is upping the ante to triple his pay in campaign donations so that he may stay As the monotonous mantra makes for a boring and unproductive day Engagement of the average citizen give the people back their say After all it's the American way and We Texans sign the checks you cash but do you earn your pay do you really want to stay cuz we came to play is it insurance that molds you like clay? Jaime Kenedeño said... Ok here we go, Republicans are not the enemy. It is the multi division of the Democratic Party and the Yanquis at the head of each faction of special interest self dealing to themselves. The Factionated Democratic Party is interested in I and there is no I in team. For this reason the Democratic Vote will experience the Ross Perot effect. Same thing in other races where disenchanted Democrats will side with Republicans instead of supporting Marisela Saldana, Jimmy Rodriguez, Larry Olivarez or even a well established incumbent like Federico Hinojosa. These candidates suffer from the disenchanted factions within the Democratic Party. I dont believe Alex Garcia or either of the State Chair Candidates possess the committment, influence or dedication to the Nueces Democratic Party to unite the factions much less draw Independent or Open Minded Reasonable Republican electorate support. I believe Rose Vela will extract a certain faction of Democratic Electorate though probably not enough to win. However, a certain progressive approach might possess a shock value that will synergize public opinion in her favor. I believe Juan Garcia can upset the incumbent if he can inspire and energize a Polanco Republicano District. Juan is very charismatic and a bold progressive movement will wake up a ho hum electorate. He has the innovative and the genius to break the mold. But will he Go for it. I believe he has the wearwithall and gumption to respectfully unseat a Candidate on Cruise Control. Perry has the King Ranch and Corporate Welfare Recipients and the only way to eject him will be by bartering with a leveraged Power Broker like Delay to target his Achilles Heal. Make a deal with Delay or Scooter. Trade the expensive prosecution for a stepping down of Top Texas Republicans (King Ranch Puppets) like Perry & Craddick. With the Education funding we should demand that the dedication of lottery money to the Education of our Children be adhered to as it was sold to Texas. The Lottery when legislated was for the Education of Texas Students. Finally, the Private Sector is funded under the WIA slush fund for Corporate Welfare Recipients under the Guise of a Welfare Reform or Welfare to Work / JOB generating program to help the poor. The rich are getting richer in the name of helping the poor. And one needs to always remember it is both parties dippin into the creative crony contractualism. Give it a title, write a grant and set up a front office with a computer and a sign; then get some brochures and a few token clients and funnel the Avarice in a shell game like manner and voila a new ranch or a new house maybe an agency hummer or King Ranch Pickup Truck with a magnetic sign. Give a few JOBS to your network affiliates and send the clients to perform community based work and get rich and richer doing it. Ask Mary Cano or Oscar Martinez to explain it in detail. Charmed I'm sure. 4:54 AM *posted by DANNOYNTED1 at 2:56 AM * | 0 comments&postID=114924485615622158> links to &postID=114924485615622158&quickEdit=true> and wrote: > > kingal: > > I can't honestly recall my father specifically instructing and telling me > to > play fair...but het I'm not knocking CC for it's size, just comparing levels of play, > that's > all. > > What makes CC interesting is this dynasty-like quality you all tend to > tolerate in ways much like that of old Duval County days when the Pharrs > held court. ----...CC reminds me of Mayberry in that respect...Andy and > Barney, Otis even, and for-evvvv-ver. > > But let me stop here as I really don't mean to be overly critical, > condesending, or seemingly mean-spirited. Personally I believe the > people, > yes, the people, the average everyday men and women of CC deserve much > better than they're tolerating, but as long as this irrational and > nonsensical democrat/republican/us/them separatist divissivism ---- > holds fast and true...you're (the universal you) ----. And, there's > only > two solutions...I'm part of one...you can guess the other if you like. > > PS: For what it's worth and with politics aside...I love the town and just > might settle there eventually. > > Hope I haven't bored you two to death and I wish as much luck and success > to > you both in your efforts as I do myself in mine. Smile > > > >From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > >To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >CC: dannoynted1@gmail.com, kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com > >Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:22:19 +0000 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >X-Originating-IP: [12.73.58.226] > >X-Originating-Email: [kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com] > >X-Sender: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >Received: from bay0-omc1-s18.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.90]) by > >bay0-imc1-s40.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); > Fri, > >27 Oct 2006 20:22:38 -0700 > >Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.9.216]) by > >bay0-omc1-s18.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); > Fri, > >27 Oct 2006 20:22:20 -0700 > >Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; > >Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:22:20 -0700 > >Received: from 207.46.9.251 by by120fd.bay120.hotmail.msn.com with > >HTTP;Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:22:19 GMT > >X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt0azDCpnaA6kqRbaRQkh9kJMiNg3Gpa09U= > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2006 03:22:20.0597 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[47325650:01C6FA40] > >Return-Path: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > > > >My Father brought me up to win within the rules. I dont need to cheat to > >win. Cheating to win is worse than losing IMO. Good will always prevail > >over bad. Due Diligence and faith in your beliefs are my choices. > >JK > > > >///////////////////// > >BTW, who says we fight fair? > > > >~dannoynted1 > > > >>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>To: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:25:33 -0500 > >> > >>I have a question if you don't mind entertaining it and indulging > me. Why > >>on earth do you guys play fair with people that aren't bothered by such > >>concerns? > >>For whay's it's worth, I have NEVER understood this and I've been doing > >>what I've been doing for a long time and in many places as a > >>representitive of Uncle Sam and as a civilian. In every skirmish, war, > >>insurrection, and "police action" and political nonsense I've ever > >>particiapted in this has amazed me to no end. Why in hell fight > >>Queensbury Rules when the other guy is willing to kick you square in the > >>balls and teeth and not bat an eye thinking it or doing it? > >> > >> > >>>From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > >>>To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >>>CC: dannoynted1@hotmail.com > >>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:01:18 +0000 > >>>MIME-Version: 1.0 > >>>X-Originating-IP: [12.73.59.93] > >>>X-Originating-Email: [kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com] > >>>X-Sender: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>Received: from bay0-omc1-s29.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.101]) by > >>>bay0-imc1-s40.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); > >>>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:01:23 -0700 > >>>Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.9.211]) by > >>>bay0-omc1-s29.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); > >>>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:01:22 -0700 > >>>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft > SMTPSVC; > >>>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:01:22 -0700 > >>>Received: from 207.46.9.251 by by120fd.bay120.hotmail.msn.com with > >>>HTTP;Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:01:18 GMT > >>>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt0XRh/FTorZIszeJFyAsI2ns0JvtgFIC6o= > >>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2006 06:01:22.0562 (UTC) > >>>FILETIME=[543CE620:01C6F98D] > >>>Return-Path: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>> > >>>Thanks for the insight. We have been through a lot of ---- dude. We > learn > >>>something new every day. And with Mikal; hopefully, he will continue to > >>>be Mikal. > >>> > >>> > >>>>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>>>To: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:23:17 -0500 > >>>> > >>>>Not a problem engaging you. I've always been on the side of the > little > >>>>guys except where I've agreed with the big guys on some moral or > >>>>philosophical issue. > >>>> > >>>>If I had any say in the larger sense of things I'd throw your > >>>>adversaries a loop. There's an old saying in my business ... "Smile, > it > >>>>makes your enemies nervous". I'd either start saying nice things > about > >>>>Watt or nothing ... and I mean AB-SO-LUTELY nothing at all ... just to > >>>>get them wondering. > >>>> > >>>>If you ever want to test your network ... plant some small piece of > >>>>seemingly significant information which is actually misinformation > with > >>>>different members of your network and remembering what you told whom > and > >>>>then just wait and see if it comes back to you. Include something > like > >>>>a date and if you have 10 network members just assign day-one right on > >>>>down the line until you reach day-ten with the tenth member in any day > >>>>combination that suits you as long as you can remember who has what > day. > >>>> Lots of ways to test people. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > >>>>>To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >>>>>CC: dannoynted1@hotmail.com > >>>>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>>>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:35:34 +0000 > >>>>>MIME-Version: 1.0 > >>>>>X-Originating-IP: [12.73.56.106] > >>>>>X-Originating-Email: [kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com] > >>>>>X-Sender: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>Received: from bay0-omc1-s23.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.95]) by > >>>>>bay0-imc1-s33.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); > >>>>>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:35:38 -0700 > >>>>>Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.9.248]) by > >>>>>bay0-omc1-s23.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); > >>>>>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:35:37 -0700 > >>>>>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft > >>>>>SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:35:37 -0700 > >>>>>Received: from 207.46.9.251 by by120fd.bay120.hotmail.msn.com with > >>>>>HTTP;Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:35:34 GMT > >>>>>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt0IWQ01zjtMuX5dXcHRFnNqCtShSx9t0jM= > >>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2006 08:35:37.0584 (UTC) > >>>>>FILETIME=[B63F6F00:01C6F8D9] > >>>>>Return-Path: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>> > >>>>>You have shown that you care enough to invest your time into engaging > >>>>>me. I appreciate and enjoy your insight. I dont trust many people but > I > >>>>>dont have to. I have grown up in this town and I have my own network > >>>>>built on the streets. These guys are just paper pushers. The Packets > of > >>>>>info are mostly garbage. I know the game and I am learning as I go. > If > >>>>>I get burned shame on me the first time. I can absorb anything these > >>>>>guys throw at me. So they can bring it however they choose. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>>>>>To: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>>>>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:42:05 -0500 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Well hi there Scott...as-in scot-free to tie-in with the happy go > >>>>>>lucky thing? Cool. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You made them alter their plans...to YOUR advantage? If so, good. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Propagandist the word gets a bad rap from Joseph Goebbles. There's > >>>>>>good propaganda and bad propaganda with a whole lot inbetween > >>>>>>occupying the spectrums from white to black. These days of > >>>>>>nicey-nicey propagandists are ususally called spin doctors, > >>>>>>publishers, and evenb speech writers. Same duck, different quack. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Aha...I see. You publish veriable packets of information. I > >>>>>>suuuuuure hope you have somebody around skilled in certains aspects > of > >>>>>>counter-intelligence. I've altered many peoples perceptions over > the > >>>>>>years substituting my own version of truth or my client's versions > to > >>>>>>unsuspecting verifers. It's an old game that you should be aware of > >>>>>>and there's several ways of successfully pulling it off such as > >>>>>>planting, leaking, double-agents, allowing something to be "found" > >>>>>>then planting the "proof" for whoever comes looking...lots of > ways. I > >>>>>>bet a good many of the very people you report on know this as I know > >>>>>>for a fact there more than a few lawyers in CC with intel and police > >>>>>>intel backgrounds. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, I haven't seen the ad, but I was told of it by a compatriot of > >>>>>>mine. It's either Rose Vela or something or someone else > >>>>>>republician-related. Makes no difference to me. Did you ask me for > a > >>>>>>specific reason? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Jaime, I just didn't draw your name out of a hat you know. Although > I > >>>>>>admit I didn't stick to a normal or standard selection process to > >>>>>>approach you either. But let me leave things like this as I don't > >>>>>>want to appear or come off as critical, obtuse, or condesending as > >>>>>>none would apply. You do what you do and keep on doing it and best > of > >>>>>>wishes and luck to you. I have no beef with fundementally honest > >>>>>>people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>However, be advised the people you're playing with don't play by any > >>>>>>rules and I doubt seriously if verifying anything other than favors > >>>>>>owed to them or their bank-accounts ever occurs to them. By playing > >>>>>>fair with those that cheat you set yourself up at a rather > pronounced > >>>>>>disadvantage. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Seeya around kemosabe. Smile > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > >>>>>>>To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>CC: dannoynted1@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>>>>>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:04:49 +0000 > >>>>>>>MIME-Version: 1.0 > >>>>>>>X-Originating-IP: [12.73.50.73] > >>>>>>>X-Originating-Email: [kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com] > >>>>>>>X-Sender: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>Received: from bay0-omc1-s34.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.106]) by > >>>>>>>bay0-imc3-s35.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444 > ); > >>>>>>>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:04:58 -0700 > >>>>>>>Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.9.223]) by > >>>>>>>bay0-omc1-s34.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830 > ); > >>>>>>>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:04:57 -0700 > >>>>>>>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft > >>>>>>>SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:04:56 -0700 > >>>>>>>Received: from 207.46.9.251 by by120fd.bay120.hotmail.msn.com with > >>>>>>>HTTP;Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:04:49 GMT > >>>>>>>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt0PkFnFY8KuSZL9FttqLcII6ZupKH/9LvY= > >>>>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2006 01:04:56.0894 (UTC) > >>>>>>>FILETIME=[C0BD95E0:01C6F89A] > >>>>>>>Return-Path: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>My name Scott says it all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I am Happy Go Lucky. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>We made them alter their plans. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Propagandist eh? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>If that term is applicable to verified information releases then so > >>>>>>>be it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I have so many packets of info right now and most of them are > >>>>>>>propaganda. We have a rule, not to publish anything unless we can > >>>>>>>corroborate it. That way our credibility remains intact. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Have you seen the big ad on the back page of El Defenzor? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>>>>>>>To: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>Subject: RE: I am intrigued > >>>>>>>>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:14:44 -0500 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The act: Lets just say certain people could use a little less > >>>>>>>>alcohol and a lot more civility, manners, and social couth in > >>>>>>>>putblic settings. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The work product: Yeah. Something like that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Jaime, with all due respect. I'm in the business of gathering > >>>>>>>>intelligence and acting uopn it, not giving it away and not > knowing > >>>>>>>>what would be done with it as then things get out from under my > >>>>>>>>direct control and might wreck my plans. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>In my business you'd be known as a propagandist. Nothing wrong > with > >>>>>>>>that, so was Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin to very large > >>>>>>>>degrees. Even propaganda has it's offshoots and separate > purposes. > >>>>>>>>White propaganda, black propaganda, disinformation, > misinformation, > >>>>>>>>manipulative, etc. While propaganda is a useful it's of little > use > >>>>>>>>w/o a plan of ACTION, covert, overt, or therwise, which is a whole > >>>>>>>>new ballgame. Let me give you a working example. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Take this thing you and others have with Mikal Watt. If you and > >>>>>>>>others have all of this information about him and all those other > >>>>>>>>lawyers aligned with him, why not DO something with it beyond > >>>>>>>>letting him know you know? I can see the public service > >>>>>>>>announcement value and all and that's a good thing, but why tip > off > >>>>>>>>Watt w/o some kind of plan to thwart, sabotage, or expose a plan > >>>>>>>>right in the middle of things and effective either altering it or > >>>>>>>>---- it up completely, OR forcing him to use and waste > resources? > >>>>>>>> What the hell kind of political war can be waged by tipping your > >>>>>>>>adversary off w/o doing something about it? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The whole point Jamie of waging a propaganda campaign from a > >>>>>>>>psychological warfare point of view is to alter and/or disrupt > your > >>>>>>>>adversary's actions and behavior to YOUR advantage, not to keep > THEM > >>>>>>>>informed of what you're doing or thinking. If you're going to > play, > >>>>>>>>play for keeps. That's how they got to where THEY are. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > >>>>>>>>>To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>CC: dannoynted1@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>Subject: I am intrigued > >>>>>>>>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:37:59 +0000 > >>>>>>>>>MIME-Version: 1.0 > >>>>>>>>>X-Originating-IP: [12.73.64.193] > >>>>>>>>>X-Originating-Email: [kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>X-Sender: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>Received: from bay0-omc1-s40.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.112]) > by > >>>>>>>>>bay0-imc1-s35.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft > >>>>>>>>>SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:18:20 -0700 > >>>>>>>>>Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.9.245]) by > >>>>>>>>>bay0-omc1-s40.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft > >>>>>>>>>SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:38:04 -0700 > >>>>>>>>>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft > >>>>>>>>>SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:38:03 -0700 > >>>>>>>>>Received: from 207.46.9.251 by by120fd.bay120.hotmail.msn.comwith > >>>>>>>>>HTTP;Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:37:59 GMT > >>>>>>>>>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt1koZ1V6CaYdtpRAVCf1G3t6otK9JQgr1A= > >>>>>>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2006 22:38:03.0958 (UTC) > >>>>>>>>>FILETIME=[11688560:01C6F7BD] > >>>>>>>>>Return-Path: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Now, I am intrigued. WATT was the cruel act you witnessed? Look > for > >>>>>>>>>the work product to start appearing around the Coastal Bend as it > >>>>>>>>>is appertaining to the Defense of the little people. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Ok, Rose acts like she is about children and as if they are > primary > >>>>>>>>>in her courtroom. Help me out with this? A courtroom is not a > place > >>>>>>>>>for children but......... "fil" in the blank, pardon the pun? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Now with the money, it is minimal with respect to the > Congressional > >>>>>>>>>Coffers of these guys. Make an arguement for me? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Why is all of these guys giving to Menendez? WATT do they want > from > >>>>>>>>>Menendez or WATT is Menendez doing for them? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>And this guy in Alaska WATT is going on that South Texas needs to > >>>>>>>>>know about. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>>>>>>>>>To: kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: Lets start all over again > >>>>>>>>>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:21:51 -0500 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>I can appreciate where you're coming from amigo w/o necessarily > >>>>>>>>>>agreeing with it in total...but to ansner your question... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Believe it or not, I'm not part of the Hinojosa machine...I'm > >>>>>>>>>>strictly an independent operator with no political agenda even > >>>>>>>>>>though my agenda has or could have a political outcome. I hope > >>>>>>>>>>this makes sense to you. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>No sir, the objective isn't Sol Grande or Jr...though I can also > >>>>>>>>>>appreciate how you'd draw that conclusion. Anything happening > to > >>>>>>>>>>others would be strictly collateral and relative to their > >>>>>>>>>>involvement with the Velas. The Velas are strictly personal > with > >>>>>>>>>>me for reasons of extreme hubris on their parts. There's a > rather > >>>>>>>>>>simple story associated with all of this and it's one of an > >>>>>>>>>>extremely cruel act on their part that I witnessed and in no way > >>>>>>>>>>involved me beyond being a spectator. And it was at that time > >>>>>>>>>>that they got on my ---- list. That he's a spoiled brat > >>>>>>>>>>millionaire and she's a jurist and both with political agendas > is > >>>>>>>>>>purely coincidental. I only want to teach them a lesson. Be > nice > >>>>>>>>>>to everybody...because some people won't give a damn who or what > >>>>>>>>>>you are and will come after you. That's what guerillas do > >>>>>>>>>>kingal...go after the bigger bullies of the world. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Another coincidence is that I would appear to be an unpaid, > >>>>>>>>>>unknown and coincidental campaign worker for Hinojosa. I'm not. > >>>>>>>>>>I'm about as apolitical as they come. My own personal view is > >>>>>>>>>>that we've long (if ever it was the case) passed the time when > >>>>>>>>>>getting the right person in office is a viable solution. To me, > >>>>>>>>>>it's not so much of getting the best person in...but keeping the > >>>>>>>>>>worst asshole OUT. I'm just that simple man. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Anyway, I appreciate your time on this matter. I sincerely hope > >>>>>>>>>>that you can and will keep me and our exchanges strictly > >>>>>>>>>>confidential as well. Believe me, I'm a friend and one that may > >>>>>>>>>>be able to help you in the future as I'm a person of > >>>>>>>>>>not-so-everyday resources...and I'm not talking about money. I > >>>>>>>>>>have skills that were part of another life and we'll ;eave it > >>>>>>>>>>there. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>One last thing about the picture flaw you picked up... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Chances are I know the one you're thinking about. An analytical > >>>>>>>>>>kind of person can pick it out in a heartbeat...but the average > >>>>>>>>>>voter my friend is an impulsive kind of creature that tends to > >>>>>>>>>>view things at only a surface level...capmpaign ads bear this > out > >>>>>>>>>>in spades. There are all kinds of flaws of logic and reason > >>>>>>>>>>within any one you care to name. Ortiz Jr's is full of them. > >>>>>>>>>>Hell, the baic flaw of most if not all is that the person > running > >>>>>>>>>>and running the ds or ads is The Greatest Problem Solver of > >>>>>>>>>>All-time...and we both know what ---- that is. Ortiz Jr has > >>>>>>>>>>about as much business of running for the legislature as I > >>>>>>>>>>do...and I have MORE life experience and don't live with my > daddy > >>>>>>>>>>and haven't since I was 18. hahahahahahaha > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Anyway, thanks a lot and if you ever need/want me, I can be > >>>>>>>>>>reached here, or if I ditch this addy, I'll contact you and let > >>>>>>>>>>you know it's me just by incertaing CC Guerilla somewhere. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Good luck. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>From: "Jaime Kenedeno" > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>CC: dannoynted1@hotmail.com, > >>>>>>>>>>>kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: Lets start all over again > >>>>>>>>>>>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:33:20 +0000 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>OK Joe, Hinojosa does not need us to hammer Rose and Fil to > >>>>>>>>>>>prevail in this election. If I open up this can of worms it > will > >>>>>>>>>>>lead straight to Solomon Grande and Jr as well. Is this the > >>>>>>>>>>>objective? At this time I probably have the punch to knock em > >>>>>>>>>>>down but the problem is they will get back up. There is much > more > >>>>>>>>>>>to come with these guys and the Velas will survive the > >>>>>>>>>>>information release given that they dont have a chance of > winning > >>>>>>>>>>>this election anyways. I can point out the children flaw and > for > >>>>>>>>>>>that matter that he donated money to these two Congressmen with > >>>>>>>>>>>questionable character however it will tie in CC DISTRIBUTORS > and > >>>>>>>>>>>all that that entails. If your objective is to insure a > Federico > >>>>>>>>>>>victory this is not required but if your objective is to Delay > >>>>>>>>>>>the MACHINE I doubt we have the horsepower as of yet. John > Kelley > >>>>>>>>>>>is the man for this JOB. Thank you for the vote of confidence. > >>>>>>>>>>>Jaime > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: "Corpus Guerilla" > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: dannoynted1@hotmail.com, > >>>>>>>>>>>>kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13@hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Lets start all over again > >>>>>>>>>>>>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:52:36 -0500 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>daannointed...I don't know what happened to the first > anonymous > >>>>>>>>>>>>emails I sent you. It might have something to do with the > "free > >>>>>>>>>>>>trial" aspects of that site I sent it from. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>kingal...I know all about Mikal Watts and his contributions. > >>>>>>>>>>>>But he hasn't drawn my interest as of yet. One step at a > time. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Now I'm addressing both of you at the same time. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>My gameplan as of the moment are the Velas. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>There's little necessary to know about me other than I'm sick > >>>>>>>>>>>>and tired of all of these petite tyrants and living under > these > >>>>>>>>>>>>BS haciedanistas under what they all ... demo and repub alike > >>>>>>>>>>>>... assume us to be ... mere peons or campesinos. I'll > >>>>>>>>>>>>entertain any reasonable questions from you if this doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>suffice. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>My plan is to show the Velas for what they are. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>By now you've seen Rose's TV commercial. Kids, adoptions in > her > >>>>>>>>>>>>court, blah blah blah. Now how do you feel the attachment > plays > >>>>>>>>>>>>into that from a political perspective? It can be found right > >>>>>>>>>>>>on her courtroom door. Here it is again. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>kingal...the pressure point on filemon is his affiliation with > >>>>>>>>>>>>those two other politicians. However, it's a MUCH BIGGER > >>>>>>>>>>>>pressure point and monkeywrench to toss into Rose's works. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Don't you think it's a political liability to have a husband > >>>>>>>>>>>>that financially supports an unindicted co-conspirator in > >>>>>>>>>>>>Hunter, and a sleave like Menendez who's under federal > >>>>>>>>>>>>investigation for financial hanky-panky?I seriously doubt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>voters would be happy with that if they knew...and that's > where > >>>>>>>>>>>>you two bloggers come in. I don't have that kind of access. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Nor do I want it. I'm doing other things in conjunction with > >>>>>>>>>>>>all this to torpedo their ship. All with the Velas is > >>>>>>>>>>>>definitely NOT what it appears to be. Enough said on that. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I have information...you two have the access. It's that > simple. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Just say I'm a little more action orientated at a different > >>>>>>>>>>>>level...not higher...just different. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Also kingal...Rose has a higher agenda other than just the > 13th > >>>>>>>>>>>>Appeals Court as I'm sure you must be aware of. If her boat > >>>>>>>>>>>>sinks here and now her other asperations go the way of the > dodo > >>>>>>>>>>>>as well. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>_______

COOL Smile

From: J. F. Kenedeno
To: cc_guerilla@hotmail.com
CC: dannoynted1@gmail.com
Date: Nov 14 2006 - 6:22am
WOW, I didn't expect to here from you so soon. Now those politicians are one
---- up breed of whore as defined below. This thing at DMC may not be a
big thing to you but it is important to our community and our kids. Arizona
Texas Mexico fence? I thought they were gonna build a frickin wall. Either
way it is a moneymaker for someone. Are you referring to Ortiz Construction
or Omega or Dos Logistics or Ocean Sipholdings Randy Delay Prison Bureau
cause that is WATT I got out of the last journey you advised. And Rose Vela?
The fence business hum....... maybe it is time to dig underground. I aint
got no problem with getting dirty as long it is all in a good day's work.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Corpus Guerilla
Date: Nov 14, 2006 5:00 AM
Subject: RE: Fwd: Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum: Is the "Swearing
In" of our n
To: kenedenonews@gmail.com

Dude, you spin a lot of wheels looking in a lot of wrong places. If you
want to start turning up collusion and dirt, set your sights on digging into
this Arizona/Texas/Mexico fence business. You can find out quite a bit
through easily accessible public sources. I won't say you're going after
the wrong people (politicians), but you're sure missing the heavy
behind-the-scenes hitters by a country mile. Hint: One can't hide from the
SBA Prime Contractor Lists and articles of incorporation listed in various
secretaries of state(s) files, and other places. Forget politicians.
They're only puppets and whores. Always have been and always will be. If
you're going to fight, sooner or later you'll have to accept and learn how
to organize effectively and be just as willing as the other side to get down
and dirty. It's just that simple. Have have a good one pal.


>From: "J. F. Kenedeno"
>To: "Solomon Ortiz Jr." , jgarcia@hdbdk.com
>Subject: Fwd: Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum: Is the "Swearing
>In" of our new leadership to be in "Executive Session"? Or is that reserved
>for planning resignations & strategic neutralizaion
>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:32:38 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.230]) by
>bay0-mc7-f16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Fri,
>10 Nov 2006 00:33:47 -0800
>Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 24so262205hud for
> ; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:33:47 -0800 (PST)
>Received: by 10.78.138.6 with SMTP id l6mr2284354hud.1163147558107;
>Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:32:38 -0800 (PST)
>Received: by 10.78.81.4 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:32:37 -0800 (PST)
>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt2C/zScBXHiC0Z4+fAlAcjPPKDKZHX8+/Q=
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;
>d=gmail.com;
>h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
>
>b=uFues2Ef9VTirQWLQOKv+xLfh6+vWuiXINqEQjX1GjQBbSrOV/hCMlGbIB/w0A0IrmORpj4tQP0uB9Ta/9jdMcr3TfeicSMejYDdVoO49NUGE01lk1nLg+Uv/TiBs4pw2HYlvL8RkuTSTjO6qTY0SfYZEj6icsLxXLq2FtoLJAI=
>References:
>Return-Path: kenedenonews@gmail.com
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2006 08:33:47.0782 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[F0FF3A60:01C704A2]
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Jaime Kenedeño
>Date: Nov 10, 2006 2:30 AM
>Subject: Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum: Is the "Swearing In" of
>our new leadership to be in "Executive Session"? Or is that reserved for
>planning resignations & strategic neutralizaion
>To: kenedenonews@gmail.com
>
>Jaime Kenedeño has sent you a link:
>
>Website: Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum
>Post: Is the "Swearing In" of our new leadership to be in "Executive
>Session"? Or is that reserved for planning resignations & strategic
>neutralizaion?
>Link:
>
http://delmarhousekeeping.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-swearing-in-of-our-new-leadership.html
>
Kenedeno & Associates
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: They didnt even read it. Reply with quote
NO. 13-02-00033-CR

LEEANN HALEY § IN THE 13TH COURT
§
VS. § OF APPEALS
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS


Appellant?s Amended Motions, Motion for Forwarding to Appropriate Entities, Motion for Oral Argument, Motion for Relief an Motion to Conduct Communication via Digital Format, Motion to Invoke all rights reserved under the U S Constitution Motion to Conduct Due Process in the interest of Justice and Motion to Compel Appearance of Material Witness

To the Honorable Justices Court of Appeals:

COMES NOW the appellant, LeeAnn Haley pursuant to the authority of Tex. R. App. P. and files the following Motions, respectfully showing the court as follows:

1. Appellant request the Motion for Court Appointed Counsel, Motion for Extension of time to file Motion for Rehearing and Motion for Rehearing be forwarded to the appropriate entities as she is financially unable to hand deliver or produce the paper and ink necessary to print out and serve to her adversaries.

2. Appellant LeeAnn Haley request oral argument before the Courts of Jurisdiction.

3. Appellant LeeAnn Haley request relief under the Constitution of the United States of America and humbly ask for a thorough examination of this very complicated "Comedy of Errors". This is the life of a human being not just another case number.

4. Appellant LeeAnn Haley request under the Freedom of Information Act and in the spirit of open government to conduct and for Reasons of Comity all further Communication including Court Records, Motions, Briefs, Writs in Digital Format (electronic submission / exchange).

5. Appellant LeeAnn Haley invokes all rights reserved under the Constitution of the United States of America (as a Legal Productive Citizen of the USA).

6. Appellant LeeAnn Haley request all further arguments be accepted "in the interest of JUSTICE" as per Judiciary Due Process Rules.

7. Appellant LeeAnn Haley request material witness Mary Cano be summoned for Deposition before making any ruling adverse to her position.



WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court grant Appellant?s Motion for Forwarding to Appropriate Entities, Motion for Oral Argument, Motion for Relief an Motion to Conduct Communication via Digital Format, Motion to Invoke all rights reserved under the U S Constitution, Motion to Conduct Due Process in the interest of Justice and Motion to Compel Appearance of Material Witness

Respectfully submitted,

LeeAnn Haley

4910 Lavaca

Corpus Christi, Texas 78411

361/851-2851



By:___________________________
LeeAnn Haley
(Defendant/Appellant)












CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on January 7, 2007 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the 13th Court of Appeals Nueces County, Texas, by electronic mail delivery.

_____________________________________
LeeAnn Haley









































ORDER

On this day came on to be heard Appellant?s Motion for Forwarding to Appropriate Entities, Motion for Oral Argument, Motion for Relief an Motion to Conduct Communication via Digital Format, Motion to Invoke all rights reserved under the U S Constitution, Motion to Conduct Due Process in the interest of Justice and Motion to Compel Appearance of Material Witness, after considering same is of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant be Appointed Counsel.
SIGNED this _____ day of __________________, 20___





___________________________
JUDGE PRESIDING






Cathy Wilborn hide details 12/6/06
to "J. F. Kenedeno"
date Dec 6, 2006 10:05 AM
subject RE: To Clerk of the 13th COA for submission (amended motions)
mailed-by courts.state.tx.us

Dear Ms. Haley:



Unfortunately, this Court is technologically unable to allow the electronic filing of documents. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c). We are hoping that this will change in the future, but for the time being, documents provided to the Court for its consideration must be sent by delivery or mail. We will also accept non-voluminous materials for filing by facsimile. Accordingly, the email that you have sent, and its attachment, are not properly before the Court for its consideration and would need to be resubmitted to the Court through means authorized by the appellate rules before the Court can rule.



Requests for oral argument should be noted on the front cover of the party?s brief. Tex. R. App. P. 39.7.



If you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act, please specify what information you are looking for.



Thanks,



Cathy Wilborn, Clerk
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

blanfear



Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1402


PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Jaime Kenedeno,

I thought I had saved a copy of a "writ of error form", I'm digging! In the mean time have tried searching through the law library information? http://library.law.smu.edu/resguide/tex-pet-rev.htm

You might try contacting the U of H law school also. There are professors and students who are willing to work and help citizens. If you know anyone attending a law school contact them, they may help....it's great practice for them.

Are you basically trying to appeal the decision? I have some information also on doing appeals from an Attorney in Dallas. This was based on a juvenile case, but it may help. I have your personal e-mail. I will compile everything I have at the moment and send it to you.

Good to year from you! KEEP FIGHTING AND HANG TOUGH!
_________________
Co-Founder, TAJLR
Isaiah 10:1 - 4
1.Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, 2.to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: appellants counsel is now employed by the District Attorney’ Reply with quote
Summary of the Argument
Appellant "was charged by indictment with the state jail felony of tampering with a governmental record twice 00-CRF-547 and 00-CRF-211 (CR,p.1) The first indictment 00-CRF-547 is referenced by LeeAnn Haley in the motion for new trial record as : On April 20th I had a status hearing for a case within which I was denied counsel which I sought counsel from him. (mfntr, pp 16-1Cool. The second indictment 00-CRF-211 is fruit of 00-CRF-547 as the State violated the settlement agreement (details attach) as if knocking a checkerboard on the ground to begin anew; while keeping in mind the first experience. The details of this event are attached. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the duplicate charge 00-CRF-211 and on December 3, 2001, a jury trial commenced (CR,p.29). The evidence at trial showed that appellant knowingly made a false entry on a Texas Department of Human Services Form 1010, At the time when Appellant filled out Form 1010; a gross income of $45.00 was the only earned income for the family. In the applying this amount to the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record; the $45.00 gross income, if included could have no effect on Medicaid, Food Stamp or TANF benefits in which the State postures an overpayment of ~ $4800.

37.10 (f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could
have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record.

A W-4 A gross income of $45.00 for substitute teaching was reported to Medicaid, Social Security, the IRS and TWC (Mary Cano) via TWIST.

The Workforce Information System of Texas (TWIST)
The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) is currently constructing a data system that will combine the separate data systems currently being used for JTPA, Employment Services, the Child Care Subsidy, Food Stamp, Employment and Training, and CHOICES (the JOBS successor) programs. This data system, The Workforce Information System of Texas (TWIST), is being implemented in three phases, scheduled to be completed in the next two years. Since its initial implementation in 1996, data for the JTPA and Employment Services have been converted into the system. TWIST carries out a number of major functions, including case management, following participant outcomes, and program reporting and evaluation. and phone communications. (See Attached)

Mary Cano’s specialized expertise and testimony is not cumulative, by testifying according to Texas Workforce Policy she would have conveyed a professional, expert knowledge to the Jury and could cogently introduce material Anton Haley attempted to present including the TWIST and Choices and TANF programs (Vol 2 0f 3 p.43-64). Further more she should have been aware of the TOTAL AND PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT Policy, TWC APPEALS POLICY AND PRECEDENT MANUAL , and specifically Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782 and other SPECIALIZED STATE AGENCY POLICY.

Subsequently, Mary Cano sanctioned the Appellant and family for not complying with Texas Workforce Commission Policy by not attending a workshop. This non-compliance defined Appellant’s husband per TPU 105.00 Policy as totally unemployed and required him to attend workshops instead of Substitute Teaching. (RR,Vol.p.83). Appellant and her husband testified that they did not report the $45.00 as gross income because they had been told by Mary Cano, an employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, that substitute teaching was not considered employment. ( RR,Vol. pp. 3,46,49,71,81-83). Expert testimony by Mary Cano would have cited current policy and law supporting the position that Anton Haley was unemployed Mary Cano was Appellant’s sole Texas Workforce advisor and TWC possessed the controlling WIA legislation / law abolishing the Texas Department of Human Services in coupe de maitre fashion. During Trial on December 4,2004 Trial counsel announced to the court that Mary Cano had been subpoenaed, but that the subpoena had not been served. (RR, Vol. 3, p 55,) Mary Cano was never served with the subpoena and thus, never testified at trial.

On December 4,2001, the jury found appellant guilty of the lesser-included misdemeanor tampering with a governmental record. (RR, p. 114) The jury heard punishment evidence assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006).. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendation and suspended appellant's sentence and placed her on community supervision for a period of 2 years (RR, p. 150).

On December 21,2001, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, and a request for court appointed appellate counsel. (CR, p. 34) On January 10, 2002, the trial court appointed Linda Rhodes Schauer as counsel on appeal for appellant Mrs. Schauer briefed the issues of the trial court's error in denying appellant her right to counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings and ineffective counsel at trial. The Court of Appeals in a per curiam opinion dated February 26, 2004 abated the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion

Linda Rhodes Schauer was allowed to withdraw as appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that she is now employed by the District Attorney’s office. . On March 4, 2004, the trial court appointed Joseph Collina as new appellate counsel to file a motion for new trial on behalf of appellant. Mr. Collina filed appellant's motion for new trial on March 22,2004.

On April 23, 2004 at the hearing set to hear the motion for new trial, the court instead heard Mr. Collina's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. The trial court granted Mr. Collina's motion to withdraw as appellate counsel due to a conflict that Mr. Colhna told the court created an impossible situation between appellant and himself. The court further heard the testimony of appellant wherein she expressed her extreme dissatisfaction in Mr. Collina's representation of her on appeal.
Current counsel was then appointed to represent appellant on her motion for new trial and any further issues on appeal. On May 6,2004, the trial court heard appellant's motion for new trial and subsequently denied the motion! The Court of Appeals expressly stated in its Per Curium Opinion issued on February 26,2004, that any further appeal in this cause should be regarding the overruling of the motion for new trial. The issues in this brief are presented according to said opinion.

If the trial judge overrules the new trial motion, the record shall be supplemented with that order and the record of any hearing held on such motion, and the parties will be permitted to brief any issues related to the overruled motion. Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; Massingill, 8 S.W.3d at 738-39.
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Jaime Kenedeno



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Location: The Body of Christ

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: i) Appellant’s right to the Compulsory Process was violated Reply with quote
Issue One: Did the appellate court err by not addressing the points of error in her original appeal?……………………………………………………………………5
Issue Two: Did the 13th Court of Appeals err by not addressing the points of error in the appellant’s written motion for new trial and amended motion for new trial?
6
Issue Three: Did the appellate court err by not addressing the points of error in Appellants original appeal? 8
Issue Four: Did the 13th Court of Appeals err in its application and modification of Siverand? .8
Issue Five: Did the 13th Court of Appeals PROPERLY APPLY THE LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL? ………………………………………………………………………9
Issue Six: Did the appeal court err by not conducting a harm analyses when the state failed to file a response brief (treated as a confession of error per siverand)? ……………………………………………………………………………………10
Issue Seven: Did the 13th Court of Appeals err in issuing a Memorandum Opinion in response to Appellant’s brief?…………………………………………………11

Issue Eight: Did the 13th Court of Appeals err in conducting an independent examination on the merits by NOT CONSIDERING THE RECORD AS A WHOLE BY AND BY ASSERTIONS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE RECORD?…………………………………………..……………………………12
Issue Nine: DID THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN ITS DECISION AFFIRMING THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AFTER HEARING THE PROSECUTION’S TESTIMONY, “ I know personally I can pick up the phone and call her and get her here if she needs to be here.” AND NOT DIRECTING THE COURT TO SECURE THE TESTIMONY OF A SUBPOENAED MATERIAL WITNESS; MARY CANO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?………...……….………………………………..…13
_________________
"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change "Those who live in Glass Houses should never throw rocks"!