|
Cafe Brownsville |
|
I agree with you on all accounts. The ad continued to run regardlesss of surrounded speculation. |
|
Is it confidential? I'd ask for specific code, statute, or case law before I believe Villalobos is pursuing more than just a witch hunt. |
|
Wow, I posted my last comment without having read Melissa Zamora's opinion. Why would the district attorney's "word" supersede anyone elses? I guess if the DA believes something it must be so? Remember Mike Nifong? I guess because President Bush said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it has to be true. I guess Rosa Parks was wrong when she felt a black's word could supersede a duly elected white persons word. I am really disappointed that she would make such a silly statement. |
|
Let me clarify here. |
|
I think our friends CD & MZ are getting a bit too big for their panties. |
|
Le gustan las uvas ácidas, Rogelio? |
|
"Is it confidential? I'd ask for specific code, statute, or case law before I believe Villalobos is pursuing more than just a witch hunt." |
|
There are provisisions for the confidentiality of any such records in several statutes. Look in the government code Chapter 552 which deals with public information. Section 552.108 specifically deals with law enforcement and prosecutorial information which is excepted from public disclosure. Section 552.352 deals with the penalty for disclosure of this information. The statute in the family code refers back to 552 of the government code. There are additional violations that Zavaletta and the others involved can be charged with in the penal code as well. Any half decent attorney or even a lay person could find this information out easily on the internet. I did. There is also no defense for ignorance of the law in Texas. Zavaletta should know better. Even if he didn't know, as Chris said, he had notice when it was called to his attention and the ads still came out anyway. That is why Zavaletta was not elected. He has no criminal experience other than being a defendant himself. Some folks are suggesting that this is politically motivated to go after Zavaletta. Well, what should the DA do just ignore the violation. These are the same people that complained that the DA was not doing his job. Now when the tables are turned they are complaining about him doing his job. |
|
I forgot to mention I loved the "declined at intake". Good work Chris. |
|
The sections you cited refer to employees of a governmental agency and public officials releasing info. Good call on the herald misstating the source. Questions: Are the board members either of the above? Was Zavaletta a "public official" by running for office? Was Zavaletta still a commissioner, and if so does this count for purposes of the statute? I leave it to the legal minds to figure this out, but in the end, the taxpayers will shell out untold amounts of money to answer these questions. Or maybe not, maybe just like the Yates case, six months of "investigation" will lead to a dropping of all charges so long as Zavaletta agrees not to run in 2012. Well, the only thing good for Zavaletta is that the DA's office investigators are investigating the case. Most of them ex-bailiffs with no police training, but they can sure block walk. Zavaletta will also walk, and Villaloco will continue to talk. By the way, since you like to play legal analyst, why don't you look into the legality of DA employees campaigning on county time? Is it legal for the DA to promise to give his employees their vacation time back if they took "vacation" time to campaign for him? Maybe Zavaletta should be appointed special prosecutor to investigate this matter? That sounds fair. Gotta go, late for rehab. |
|
Attaboy, "Limas". |
|
Actually, it's in the Family Code, not the penal code. |
|
Zavaletta made such a big issue of the politiqueras that nobody wanted to touch them or even the usual suspects that help out holding signs. So the employees volunteered to campaign for Villalobos...so what. As long as long as it was not on county time, I see no problem with that. I see how devoted they are to their boss and their office. I didnt see but a couple of Zavaletta folks holding signs on election day at a couple of the precincts. Limas, maybe you were one of the two persons holding a sign. |
|
What bothered me the most about the ad was the presumption that these people who were never charged were some how guilty. This is not how a fair and open government operates. I would be curious to see if any of these people sue PZ for causing damage to their reputations |
|
"I would be curious to see if any of these people sue PZ for causing damage to their reputations" |
Commenting by HaloScan |
