This morning my lawyer, Doris Sipes, filed a defamation lawsuit against Channel 7, KVIA TV reporter Ashlie Hardway and her station. I will make the lawsuit available by link here by Monday. Stay tuned.
Ashlie Hardway and KVIA sued for Defamation
October 10, 2008, 9:05 amAn Update on Judge Angie Barill and her Illegal Order Expunging an Arrest
October 7, 2008, 4:43 am
Yesterday, Stuart Leeds and I had an all day hearing in front of Judge Darr from Midland, Texas. Stuart Leeds and I had filed motions to recuse Judge Angie Barill of the 346th District Court due to her biased conduct. She had ordered the expungement of Alberto Ocegueda's records even though they could not be expunged for 32 years from the date of his arrest in November 2006. After DA Jaime Esparza had accused me of violating the expungement statute by violating Ocegueda's illegal expungement order, Staurt Leeds and I filed the unprecedented action of undoing Ocegueda's expungement. Judge Barill, when confronted with her original illegal order of expungement refused to correct her mistake when shown that the records aggravated sexual assault of a child could not have been expunged for 32 years. Judge Pendergrass who ultimately came in to hear the matter, disagreed with Barill and undid her original order and set the record straight.
What follows is the opening statement of Stuart Leeds in yesterday's hearing. I want to share his words with you.
Judge Darr:
Welcome to the Bizarro world of El Paso County where you have just stepped through the looking glass.
To a world where two defense attorneys have to expose government corruption and the whole weight of the government opposes them and objects to it.
To a world where two defense attorneys have to fight to preserve and protect the public record from unlawful destruction.
To a world where the County Attorney's Office agrees to the illegal expunction of the records of an accused Aggravated Sexual Assaulter of a six year old girl and Judge Barill signs the order and grants the unlawful expunction.
And all this to help the District Attorney's secretary's brother get his records wrongfully expunged.
Make no mistake. This is all about the tail-end of the cover up of an Alleged Sexual Assault of a six year old case.
Then Judge Barill refused to correct her error and the record when it was brought to her attention; she refused to do the right thing as the case law and Judicial Canons dictate her to do and even improperly refused to hear the case and improperly referred it, without stating why she was recusing herself or disqualifying herself to Judge Ables and, in so doing, tried to improperly influence him, the successor judge, and prejudice our case in his court.
And then a third judge, Judge Carl Pendergrass of Del, Rio has to travel to El Paso just like you did to hear the case and he does without wasting any time and immediately vacates Judge Barill's order of expunction as void and calls it a legal malady and orders the recods that had been wrongfully expunged back into the record!
Now all of the witnesses to this who have been supoenaed to testify to Judge Barill's conduct have filed motions to quash so they don't have to answer for their conduct or what they have witnessed. But you won't be the first out of town judge to be thwarted by them. Judge Pendergrass is having to come BACK to El Paso next week, on 10-14 to enforce his original order vacating the expunction in a contempt hearing as District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez and Assistant County Attorney Annabell Perez, two of the very witnesses seeking to have their subpoenas quashed here today, because remarkably, the County Attorney's Office told the District Clerk not to file Judge Pendergrass' order vacating the void expunction, not to send it out to all law enforcement agencies, not to give us a copy of the order we, as the prevailing party drafted, and not to even let us see the file anymore and he followed their instructions!
So of course, they don't want to testify! Even the judge who refuses to recuse herself does not want to testify at her own recusal hearing, which I have never heard of.
So do not quash. But if quashed, we desire to make a bill with the same witnesses for appellate purposes.
Of course they do not want to testify with an FBI Public Corruption investigation currently going on at this courthouse with allegations of forum fixing which this case contains evidence of and many of these witnesses played their part in so it's all relevant as are the relationships between and among them which goes to why they did what they did.
These arguments put forth today are arguments and objections more properly made at the hearing and are not reasons to quash subpoenas; subpoenas we had to pay hundreds of dollars out of our own pockets to get served by a private process server because the District Clerk would not prepare and issue the subpoenas for the Sheriff to serve. This is what we are up against!
So deny their motions to quash and allow us to proceed and hear their testimony. This very show of force today illustrates the reasons why it is necessary to call these witnesses and recuse Judge Barill. For when a courtroom turns into a circus something is very wrong and a hearing needs to be held to get to the bottom of it.
Interestingly and in closing: A letter to the editor in today's paper quotes Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Nazi proaganda minister as follows:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequence of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by its extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Thank you.
What follows is the opening statement of Stuart Leeds in yesterday's hearing. I want to share his words with you.
Judge Darr:
Welcome to the Bizarro world of El Paso County where you have just stepped through the looking glass.
To a world where two defense attorneys have to expose government corruption and the whole weight of the government opposes them and objects to it.
To a world where two defense attorneys have to fight to preserve and protect the public record from unlawful destruction.
To a world where the County Attorney's Office agrees to the illegal expunction of the records of an accused Aggravated Sexual Assaulter of a six year old girl and Judge Barill signs the order and grants the unlawful expunction.
And all this to help the District Attorney's secretary's brother get his records wrongfully expunged.
Make no mistake. This is all about the tail-end of the cover up of an Alleged Sexual Assault of a six year old case.
Then Judge Barill refused to correct her error and the record when it was brought to her attention; she refused to do the right thing as the case law and Judicial Canons dictate her to do and even improperly refused to hear the case and improperly referred it, without stating why she was recusing herself or disqualifying herself to Judge Ables and, in so doing, tried to improperly influence him, the successor judge, and prejudice our case in his court.
And then a third judge, Judge Carl Pendergrass of Del, Rio has to travel to El Paso just like you did to hear the case and he does without wasting any time and immediately vacates Judge Barill's order of expunction as void and calls it a legal malady and orders the recods that had been wrongfully expunged back into the record!
Now all of the witnesses to this who have been supoenaed to testify to Judge Barill's conduct have filed motions to quash so they don't have to answer for their conduct or what they have witnessed. But you won't be the first out of town judge to be thwarted by them. Judge Pendergrass is having to come BACK to El Paso next week, on 10-14 to enforce his original order vacating the expunction in a contempt hearing as District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez and Assistant County Attorney Annabell Perez, two of the very witnesses seeking to have their subpoenas quashed here today, because remarkably, the County Attorney's Office told the District Clerk not to file Judge Pendergrass' order vacating the void expunction, not to send it out to all law enforcement agencies, not to give us a copy of the order we, as the prevailing party drafted, and not to even let us see the file anymore and he followed their instructions!
So of course, they don't want to testify! Even the judge who refuses to recuse herself does not want to testify at her own recusal hearing, which I have never heard of.
So do not quash. But if quashed, we desire to make a bill with the same witnesses for appellate purposes.
Of course they do not want to testify with an FBI Public Corruption investigation currently going on at this courthouse with allegations of forum fixing which this case contains evidence of and many of these witnesses played their part in so it's all relevant as are the relationships between and among them which goes to why they did what they did.
These arguments put forth today are arguments and objections more properly made at the hearing and are not reasons to quash subpoenas; subpoenas we had to pay hundreds of dollars out of our own pockets to get served by a private process server because the District Clerk would not prepare and issue the subpoenas for the Sheriff to serve. This is what we are up against!
So deny their motions to quash and allow us to proceed and hear their testimony. This very show of force today illustrates the reasons why it is necessary to call these witnesses and recuse Judge Barill. For when a courtroom turns into a circus something is very wrong and a hearing needs to be held to get to the bottom of it.
Interestingly and in closing: A letter to the editor in today's paper quotes Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Nazi proaganda minister as follows:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequence of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by its extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Thank you.
Behold the Quality of our State Prosecutors, Annabell Perez
October 3, 2008, 3:01 pm
Editor's note: Here is a letter I have written to Asst. County Attorney Annabell Perez regarding her conduct on the ongoing saga of the Alberto Ocegueda child molestation accusation and illegal expunction of his arrest records.
Theresa Caballero
Attorney at Law
300 E. Main St., Suite 1136
El Paso, TX 79901
915.566.0229
915.562.5250 fax
October 3, 2008
County Attorney’s Office
Ms. Annabell Perez
500 E. San Antonio St.
El Paso, TX 79901
Re: Cause No. 2008-1016 and 2007-2768
Dear Ms. Perez:
Your letter to Judge Pendergrass, wherein you state, in direct contravention of Judge Pendergrass’ order, that you are directing your client, District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez, to turn over, not the entire files in both cause numbers to us, but rather only certain orders and pleadings, forms the basis of our motion to have you and your client held in contempt. Judge Pendergrass was very clear when he wrote that the entirety of both files should be turned over to Mr. Leeds and me as the attorneys of record. Judge Pendergrass did not order that only select documents as defined by you are what are to be turned over to us. But you know that.
On September 2, 2008, Mr. Leeds and I personally requested of Mr. Sanchez copies of the orders signed by Judge Pendergrass. Sanchez told us that the County Attorney’s office had told him not to give them to us or to even file the orders. Early this week, long after Judge Pendergrass directed your client to give us the contents of those files, we submitted a formal request in writing to see those files. We have yet to hear from Mr. Sanchez giving us access to those files. It is now October 3, 2008 and astonishingly, we, as attorneys of record, still do not have copies of Judge Pendergrass’ orders or have access to the files.
While it is disappointing to see that your client Sanchez has yet to comply with Judge Pendergrass’ directives, and that you have put in writing that as his attorney you are advising him to only partially comply with the Court’s orders, it is not surprising. An attorney should never have to go to court to get a sitting District Clerk to file an order. Nor should an attorney have to contend with an assistant county attorney who, in her capacity as head of the expunction unit, both agrees to an illegal expunction of an alleged child molester’s records on behalf of the State of Texas but then advises a government official not to turn over the attorney’s own files to her. And if Gilbert Sanchez is to be believed, it was your office that advised him not to FILE Judge Pendergrass’ order undoing the illegal expunction. It is a strange world we live in indeed, when defense attorneys in private practice have to seek the protection of the courts to prevent public records from being illegally secreted and destroyed while the attorney’s representing the State do not do so. Not only do the attorneys who pretend to represent the State not do so but they agree to false pleadings seeking to destroy such public records and move to delay orders correcting the false pleadings.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Leeds and I expected nothing less than the conduct you have displayed in this case. We have dealt with you and your office far too long to have harbored any illusions that you would act otherwise. Therefore no phone calls from us to you would ever resolve the fundamental problems and lack of honesty that are at issue here. The law does not contemplate such an absurdity.
You have long served as the attorney for District Attorney Jaime Esparza on his numerous lawsuits. The case at bar concerns the arrest records of your client’s long time friend and brother of his personal secretary. In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the possible reflection that you are doing your friend and former employer Esparza’s family friends a favor by allowing the unit you personally supervise to agree to this illegal expunction, you should have, at the very least, removed yourself from this matter. And more importantly, you should have joined in our efforts to protect the integrity of the law and the stake that the People of Texas have in preserving public records. Who pray tell, besides Mr. Leeds and myself, are protecting the rights of the citizens of Texas to have access to Mr. Alberto Ocegueda’s records? That is really the job of you and your office, not the private bar. The People of the State of Texas are without a prosecutor in this sordid affair. You should have been the prosecutor protecting them and the law.
I recently litigated an expunction I had filed on behalf of a client. An attorney from the expunction unit you personally supervise came in and fought me tooth and nail arguing that the statute of limitations had not run on my client’s case, arguing that she did not fall under an exception and that therefore she was not entitled to an expunction. The fact that my client did fall under an exception as evidenced by the court paperwork and was by law entitled to an expunction, mattered not to your attorney. Fortunately for my client, the court followed the law and the evidence and agreed with us and you lost. What is more telling by this case is that when it comes to your friends and your friends’ friends, limitations and exceptions matter not. When it comes to the average El Pasoan without connections, your position is brutal and also not in keeping with state law. Those who are entitled to expunctions have to fight for them and those who are not entitled but who are connected don’t have to fight and get them anyway. It is an upside down world indeed.
On the record, Mr. Leeds and I look forward to an explanation from you as to why you agreed to expunge Ocegueda’s records when the law clearly barred an expunction. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you as to why you told Gilbert Sanchez to turn over only part of the file when in fact the judge ordered that he turn over the entire file to us. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you as to why you did not disqualify yourself from representing Mr. Sanchez who has refused to follow Judge Pendergrass’ orders as they relate to us. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you on these and other related matters. We are very interested in what you have to say.
Sincerely,
Theresa Caballero
Stuart Leeds
Cc: Judge Carl Pendergrass; Joe Spencer
Theresa Caballero
Attorney at Law
300 E. Main St., Suite 1136
El Paso, TX 79901
915.566.0229
915.562.5250 fax
October 3, 2008
County Attorney’s Office
Ms. Annabell Perez
500 E. San Antonio St.
El Paso, TX 79901
Re: Cause No. 2008-1016 and 2007-2768
Dear Ms. Perez:
Your letter to Judge Pendergrass, wherein you state, in direct contravention of Judge Pendergrass’ order, that you are directing your client, District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez, to turn over, not the entire files in both cause numbers to us, but rather only certain orders and pleadings, forms the basis of our motion to have you and your client held in contempt. Judge Pendergrass was very clear when he wrote that the entirety of both files should be turned over to Mr. Leeds and me as the attorneys of record. Judge Pendergrass did not order that only select documents as defined by you are what are to be turned over to us. But you know that.
On September 2, 2008, Mr. Leeds and I personally requested of Mr. Sanchez copies of the orders signed by Judge Pendergrass. Sanchez told us that the County Attorney’s office had told him not to give them to us or to even file the orders. Early this week, long after Judge Pendergrass directed your client to give us the contents of those files, we submitted a formal request in writing to see those files. We have yet to hear from Mr. Sanchez giving us access to those files. It is now October 3, 2008 and astonishingly, we, as attorneys of record, still do not have copies of Judge Pendergrass’ orders or have access to the files.
While it is disappointing to see that your client Sanchez has yet to comply with Judge Pendergrass’ directives, and that you have put in writing that as his attorney you are advising him to only partially comply with the Court’s orders, it is not surprising. An attorney should never have to go to court to get a sitting District Clerk to file an order. Nor should an attorney have to contend with an assistant county attorney who, in her capacity as head of the expunction unit, both agrees to an illegal expunction of an alleged child molester’s records on behalf of the State of Texas but then advises a government official not to turn over the attorney’s own files to her. And if Gilbert Sanchez is to be believed, it was your office that advised him not to FILE Judge Pendergrass’ order undoing the illegal expunction. It is a strange world we live in indeed, when defense attorneys in private practice have to seek the protection of the courts to prevent public records from being illegally secreted and destroyed while the attorney’s representing the State do not do so. Not only do the attorneys who pretend to represent the State not do so but they agree to false pleadings seeking to destroy such public records and move to delay orders correcting the false pleadings.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Leeds and I expected nothing less than the conduct you have displayed in this case. We have dealt with you and your office far too long to have harbored any illusions that you would act otherwise. Therefore no phone calls from us to you would ever resolve the fundamental problems and lack of honesty that are at issue here. The law does not contemplate such an absurdity.
You have long served as the attorney for District Attorney Jaime Esparza on his numerous lawsuits. The case at bar concerns the arrest records of your client’s long time friend and brother of his personal secretary. In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the possible reflection that you are doing your friend and former employer Esparza’s family friends a favor by allowing the unit you personally supervise to agree to this illegal expunction, you should have, at the very least, removed yourself from this matter. And more importantly, you should have joined in our efforts to protect the integrity of the law and the stake that the People of Texas have in preserving public records. Who pray tell, besides Mr. Leeds and myself, are protecting the rights of the citizens of Texas to have access to Mr. Alberto Ocegueda’s records? That is really the job of you and your office, not the private bar. The People of the State of Texas are without a prosecutor in this sordid affair. You should have been the prosecutor protecting them and the law.
I recently litigated an expunction I had filed on behalf of a client. An attorney from the expunction unit you personally supervise came in and fought me tooth and nail arguing that the statute of limitations had not run on my client’s case, arguing that she did not fall under an exception and that therefore she was not entitled to an expunction. The fact that my client did fall under an exception as evidenced by the court paperwork and was by law entitled to an expunction, mattered not to your attorney. Fortunately for my client, the court followed the law and the evidence and agreed with us and you lost. What is more telling by this case is that when it comes to your friends and your friends’ friends, limitations and exceptions matter not. When it comes to the average El Pasoan without connections, your position is brutal and also not in keeping with state law. Those who are entitled to expunctions have to fight for them and those who are not entitled but who are connected don’t have to fight and get them anyway. It is an upside down world indeed.
On the record, Mr. Leeds and I look forward to an explanation from you as to why you agreed to expunge Ocegueda’s records when the law clearly barred an expunction. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you as to why you told Gilbert Sanchez to turn over only part of the file when in fact the judge ordered that he turn over the entire file to us. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you as to why you did not disqualify yourself from representing Mr. Sanchez who has refused to follow Judge Pendergrass’ orders as they relate to us. On the record, we look forward to hearing from you on these and other related matters. We are very interested in what you have to say.
Sincerely,
Theresa Caballero
Stuart Leeds
Cc: Judge Carl Pendergrass; Joe Spencer
Joe Spencer Gambles his Law License on Alleged Child Molester Ocegueda
September 18, 2008, 10:32 am
Attorney Joe Spencer filed a petition seeking the destruction of his client’s arrest records for aggravated sexual assault of a child. The petition he filed stated false grounds. Spencer stated in his petition that there had been an "information." That was not true. There was never an "information" filed against his client. An "information" is a charging instrument. It is like an indictment. Spencer stated in his petition that the "information" had been "dismissed." That is also not true. There had never been a dismissal. A "dismissal' requires the signature of a judge and there was no judge in this case because it never went to court. The case never went to court because the special prosecutor never filed formal charges against the client and just dumped the case.
Joe Spencer filed the Petition for expunction and then went to court. There at court, one other party appeared and that was the office of El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez. The County Attorney agreed to the expunction, even though the pleadings were false. The CountyAttorney signed the order saying he agreed to the expunction. Judge Angie Barill signed the order granting the expunction. District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez sent Judge Barill's order out to 16 law enforcement agencies directing them to destroy the records of one Alberto Ocegueda for aggravated sexual assault of a child. I know for sure that the Sheriff's Office destroyed its records because when you ask them for those records now they say they have none.
Spencer gave the petition and the order of expunction to channel 7 reporter Ashlie Hardway who ran a story accusing me of being in violation of the expunction law. One of the many things Hardway willfully failed to tell her viewers is that the expunction order was obtained illegally.
Stuart Leeds and I brought to Mr. Spencer's attention that his petition for expunction was premised on false grounds, rendering the order of expunction void, and asked him to join with us to correct the record. Spencer refused to do so. In fact, he filed pleadings opposing our efforts to correct the record. We then set the matter to undo Ocegueda's/Spencer's Expunction order for hearing. Judge Pendergrass traveled from Del Rio, Texas to hear the matter (Judge Barill, who signed the original order granting the expunction refused to correct her mistake so judge Pendergrass had to come in to do it.) Joe Spencer, instead of coming clean with the court at the August 13, 2008 Pendergrass hearing continued to defend the lies in his petition by stating that the court had no jurisdiction and the records had already been destroyed so it was too late anyway. Judge Pendergrass pointed out some of the defects in Spencer's petition and then ordered the expunction reversed. Still, Spencer, when faced with a total court reversal and humiliation based on his false pleadings, did not fall on his sword and CORRECT the record as ethics dictate that he do. The rules of ethics REQUIRE an attorney to be truthful with the court. They also require an attorney to inform the court if he has presented false information to the court.--Sometimes attorneys make mistakes in their pleadings or arguments. When they realize what they have done, they must tell the court of their mistake. It is done all the time. Courts need to be able to rely on what an attorney says.
Dallas attorney James Vasilas filed a petition for expunction on behalf of his client who had been charged with Possession/Delivery of marihuana. According to the legal opinion in that case, Vasilas stated grounds in his petition for expunction that were not correct. Unlike Spencer, Vasilas took corrective measures and actually WITHDREW his petition for expunction. However, the DA still indicted Vasilas for tampering with government records. The Court just ruled that a petition for expunction is a government record for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Vasilas' case has been remanded to the trial court.
El Paso attorney Joe Spencer has yet to take corrective measures regarding his false petition for expunction. In fact, El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez has argued to the Texas Attorney General's Office that Ocegueda's records should be kept out of the public light because Mr. Spencer may file an APPEAL of Judge Pendergrass' ruling to undo Ocegueda's expunction. This means that County Attorney Jose Rodriguez is saying that Spencer will not only NOT correct the record but that Spencer may continue to defend the original lie to the court by carrying the lie up to the NEXT court. And the County Attorney is going to help him do this.
The County Attorney, Jose Rodrigue,z signed the original order of expunction saying he agreed to the destruction of Ocegueda's records KNOWING the statute of limitations had not passed and therefore the petition could not even have been FILED for 32 years. Now the same County Attorney may himself appeal Pendergrass' order which means if he does, that he too will be carrying Spencer's lie forward. Worse yet, Jose Rodriguez agreed to the illegal destruction of records and did not correct the mistake himself by withdrawing his agreement when it came to light that Spencer's petition had falsehoods. Rodriguez may very well have destroyed Ocegueda's records kept in his office.--Do you think the county attorney in the Vasilas case is helping Vasilas?
Attorney James Vasilas who withdrew his petition for expunction and corrected himself and who never obtained an order of expunction is facing criminal prosecution. Joe Spencer, who is still fighting to protect his lies and whose petition for expunction in fact RESULTED in the destruction of public records, walks around like he's dipped in gold. Why is that? Well because the District Attorney Jaime Esparza is Spencer's best friend and they "help" each other out. Spencer's sister Dinna Spencer is the Office manager for Esparza. The client, Alberto Ocegueda, is the other best friend of Esparza and the brother of Esparza's high dollar secretary Amy Ocegueda Lujan. And all the while a little girl who accused Ocegueda of penetrating her vagina is now sitting at home being home schooled and not at class with her friends. Ocegueda gets to keep his job at the school district as long as no one can see his arrest records.
None of these sordid, disgusting facts surround Mr. Vasilas' case and look at the difference. Vasilas could probably honestly argue that he made a mistake and he corrected it and furthermore his mistake resulted in no harm to the community as his client's records were not destroyed. What is Spencer's defense other than nananana, my friend is the DA? Catch me if you can?
Joe Spencer filed the Petition for expunction and then went to court. There at court, one other party appeared and that was the office of El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez. The County Attorney agreed to the expunction, even though the pleadings were false. The CountyAttorney signed the order saying he agreed to the expunction. Judge Angie Barill signed the order granting the expunction. District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez sent Judge Barill's order out to 16 law enforcement agencies directing them to destroy the records of one Alberto Ocegueda for aggravated sexual assault of a child. I know for sure that the Sheriff's Office destroyed its records because when you ask them for those records now they say they have none.
Spencer gave the petition and the order of expunction to channel 7 reporter Ashlie Hardway who ran a story accusing me of being in violation of the expunction law. One of the many things Hardway willfully failed to tell her viewers is that the expunction order was obtained illegally.
Stuart Leeds and I brought to Mr. Spencer's attention that his petition for expunction was premised on false grounds, rendering the order of expunction void, and asked him to join with us to correct the record. Spencer refused to do so. In fact, he filed pleadings opposing our efforts to correct the record. We then set the matter to undo Ocegueda's/Spencer's Expunction order for hearing. Judge Pendergrass traveled from Del Rio, Texas to hear the matter (Judge Barill, who signed the original order granting the expunction refused to correct her mistake so judge Pendergrass had to come in to do it.) Joe Spencer, instead of coming clean with the court at the August 13, 2008 Pendergrass hearing continued to defend the lies in his petition by stating that the court had no jurisdiction and the records had already been destroyed so it was too late anyway. Judge Pendergrass pointed out some of the defects in Spencer's petition and then ordered the expunction reversed. Still, Spencer, when faced with a total court reversal and humiliation based on his false pleadings, did not fall on his sword and CORRECT the record as ethics dictate that he do. The rules of ethics REQUIRE an attorney to be truthful with the court. They also require an attorney to inform the court if he has presented false information to the court.--Sometimes attorneys make mistakes in their pleadings or arguments. When they realize what they have done, they must tell the court of their mistake. It is done all the time. Courts need to be able to rely on what an attorney says.
Dallas attorney James Vasilas filed a petition for expunction on behalf of his client who had been charged with Possession/Delivery of marihuana. According to the legal opinion in that case, Vasilas stated grounds in his petition for expunction that were not correct. Unlike Spencer, Vasilas took corrective measures and actually WITHDREW his petition for expunction. However, the DA still indicted Vasilas for tampering with government records. The Court just ruled that a petition for expunction is a government record for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Vasilas' case has been remanded to the trial court.
El Paso attorney Joe Spencer has yet to take corrective measures regarding his false petition for expunction. In fact, El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez has argued to the Texas Attorney General's Office that Ocegueda's records should be kept out of the public light because Mr. Spencer may file an APPEAL of Judge Pendergrass' ruling to undo Ocegueda's expunction. This means that County Attorney Jose Rodriguez is saying that Spencer will not only NOT correct the record but that Spencer may continue to defend the original lie to the court by carrying the lie up to the NEXT court. And the County Attorney is going to help him do this.
The County Attorney, Jose Rodrigue,z signed the original order of expunction saying he agreed to the destruction of Ocegueda's records KNOWING the statute of limitations had not passed and therefore the petition could not even have been FILED for 32 years. Now the same County Attorney may himself appeal Pendergrass' order which means if he does, that he too will be carrying Spencer's lie forward. Worse yet, Jose Rodriguez agreed to the illegal destruction of records and did not correct the mistake himself by withdrawing his agreement when it came to light that Spencer's petition had falsehoods. Rodriguez may very well have destroyed Ocegueda's records kept in his office.--Do you think the county attorney in the Vasilas case is helping Vasilas?
Attorney James Vasilas who withdrew his petition for expunction and corrected himself and who never obtained an order of expunction is facing criminal prosecution. Joe Spencer, who is still fighting to protect his lies and whose petition for expunction in fact RESULTED in the destruction of public records, walks around like he's dipped in gold. Why is that? Well because the District Attorney Jaime Esparza is Spencer's best friend and they "help" each other out. Spencer's sister Dinna Spencer is the Office manager for Esparza. The client, Alberto Ocegueda, is the other best friend of Esparza and the brother of Esparza's high dollar secretary Amy Ocegueda Lujan. And all the while a little girl who accused Ocegueda of penetrating her vagina is now sitting at home being home schooled and not at class with her friends. Ocegueda gets to keep his job at the school district as long as no one can see his arrest records.
None of these sordid, disgusting facts surround Mr. Vasilas' case and look at the difference. Vasilas could probably honestly argue that he made a mistake and he corrected it and furthermore his mistake resulted in no harm to the community as his client's records were not destroyed. What is Spencer's defense other than nananana, my friend is the DA? Catch me if you can?
DA Jaime Esparza Getting Nervous and Keeping an Enemies List
September 15, 2008, 3:06 pm
One very important quality all District Attorneys must possess in order to properly wield their power, is the ability to be blind as to who is in front of them to the exent that they do not do favors for their friends or be vidictive toward their enemies--as tempting as it may be. By law, a prosecutor must seek justice and nothing else, not even convictions. As we all have seen for many, many years, Jaime Esparza has wrongly and corruptly used his power to cut his friends loose, i.e. Former Mayor Joe Wardy (loaded gun at the airport case), Nicolas Rodriguez-son of County Attorney Jose Rodriguez (felony possession of marihuana case), Dick Poe, Jr. (DWI), Police Officers Albert Machorro, Jr.-son of Esparza's investigator, and Jose Garcia (sexual assault), former police officers Luis Nava/Amato (sexual assault of a child), former El Paso Times reporter and now reporter for the Newspaper Tree, Charles DAVID Crowder (let go on his second DWI), Judge elect of the 65th District Court and current assistant county Attorney Yahara Lisa Gutierrez (DWI), Alberto Ocegueda--brother of his personal, over-paid, high price secretary, Amy Lujan, (aggravated sexual assault of a child) and the list goes on and on and on.
Esparza also has a reputation for incarcerating and prosecuting the innocent whom he perceives to have "gotten in his way." Esparza has used his power wrongly to go after George DeAngelis-former deputy police chief and former police officer Cerjio Martinez (they blew the whistle on possible drug cartel infiltration at the police department and Esparza indicted them-see earlier blogs), Nancy Hollebeke (She accused two cops of raping her, one of them the son of Esparza's employee, Albert Machorro Sr. and Esparza had her thrown in jail). Esparza was on the radio the day after the election, March 5, 2008, saying he was coming after me for publishing his best friend's arrest records. That would be the records of alleged child molestor Alberto Ocegueda. Although Esparza has a lousy trial record, what he does have is an impeccable record for being the biggest bully on the block.
Sometime within the last month, a lawyer friend of Stuart Leeds and mine had an appointment to meet with Esparza over a case. Our friend wanted to ask Esparza to dismiss a case he felt Esparza could not prove. Stuart Leeds happened to be in front of the DA's office when our friend was also there waiting for his appointment. The two were chatting about a hearing when Esparza came out to meet with our friend. Stuart left. Our friend reports that Esparza told him, "Interesting company you keep (referring to Stuart)."--Our friend then met with Esparza and tried to show him the paper work on his case but Esparza seemed distracted and unable to focus. Our friend offered to write his arguments and points of law up to make it simple for Esparza. Esparza told him not to bother as he would not dismiss the case. Right after telling our friend he would not dismiss his case, Esparza again said, "Interesting company you keep."
What is it to Esparza who someone's friends are? Even Richard Nixon learned the hard way, keeping an enemies list did him no good.
It is obvious that Esparza was not going to consider the merits of our friend's case because now he knows he's our friend. Yet again Esparza does the wrong thing. What is also interesting is that Esparza is so nervous these days about the Ocegeuda matter and the fact that it has mushroomed into a scandal so big it has reached the desk of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, Justice Jefferson, as well as the Attorney General's White Collar Crime Unit in Austin as well as US Attorney Johnny Sutton's desk that he can't control his mouth or mask any longer his hatred of Stuart and me. We are simply not going away or letting up. The undoing of Ocegueda's illegal expunction seems to have especially rattled him. I wonder why. By telling our friend what he did, Esparza is showing his paranoia and his extreme frustration. Esparza has fallen prey to his own nervousness and vindictiveness. He's coming unglued.
What our friend needs to learn is that Esparza prosecutes the innocent all day long and there is no use going to beg him for a dismissal because it will be all about who you are and who your client is, what you can do for him and the company you keep. It for sure won't be about the merits of the case. That's the last thing Esparza cares about. Stuart Leeds and I learned that lesson years ago on the Hollebeke case. My advice to my friend and other attorneys is to get up off your knees, go do your job, prepare, collect your paperwork, line up your witnesses, read the law, set your cases for one contested hearing after another, never show fear, be willing to make enemies and billy club Esparza and his cadre of like minded drones into the ground with plain old good aggressive lawyering. In other words, go be good defense attorneys. That's what we do and we have a great track record on representing our clients on cases filed by Esparza on everything from murder to rape to DWI. We never bother to go to Esparza's office.
The above is a true story.
Esparza also has a reputation for incarcerating and prosecuting the innocent whom he perceives to have "gotten in his way." Esparza has used his power wrongly to go after George DeAngelis-former deputy police chief and former police officer Cerjio Martinez (they blew the whistle on possible drug cartel infiltration at the police department and Esparza indicted them-see earlier blogs), Nancy Hollebeke (She accused two cops of raping her, one of them the son of Esparza's employee, Albert Machorro Sr. and Esparza had her thrown in jail). Esparza was on the radio the day after the election, March 5, 2008, saying he was coming after me for publishing his best friend's arrest records. That would be the records of alleged child molestor Alberto Ocegueda. Although Esparza has a lousy trial record, what he does have is an impeccable record for being the biggest bully on the block.
Sometime within the last month, a lawyer friend of Stuart Leeds and mine had an appointment to meet with Esparza over a case. Our friend wanted to ask Esparza to dismiss a case he felt Esparza could not prove. Stuart Leeds happened to be in front of the DA's office when our friend was also there waiting for his appointment. The two were chatting about a hearing when Esparza came out to meet with our friend. Stuart left. Our friend reports that Esparza told him, "Interesting company you keep (referring to Stuart)."--Our friend then met with Esparza and tried to show him the paper work on his case but Esparza seemed distracted and unable to focus. Our friend offered to write his arguments and points of law up to make it simple for Esparza. Esparza told him not to bother as he would not dismiss the case. Right after telling our friend he would not dismiss his case, Esparza again said, "Interesting company you keep."
What is it to Esparza who someone's friends are? Even Richard Nixon learned the hard way, keeping an enemies list did him no good.
It is obvious that Esparza was not going to consider the merits of our friend's case because now he knows he's our friend. Yet again Esparza does the wrong thing. What is also interesting is that Esparza is so nervous these days about the Ocegeuda matter and the fact that it has mushroomed into a scandal so big it has reached the desk of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, Justice Jefferson, as well as the Attorney General's White Collar Crime Unit in Austin as well as US Attorney Johnny Sutton's desk that he can't control his mouth or mask any longer his hatred of Stuart and me. We are simply not going away or letting up. The undoing of Ocegueda's illegal expunction seems to have especially rattled him. I wonder why. By telling our friend what he did, Esparza is showing his paranoia and his extreme frustration. Esparza has fallen prey to his own nervousness and vindictiveness. He's coming unglued.
What our friend needs to learn is that Esparza prosecutes the innocent all day long and there is no use going to beg him for a dismissal because it will be all about who you are and who your client is, what you can do for him and the company you keep. It for sure won't be about the merits of the case. That's the last thing Esparza cares about. Stuart Leeds and I learned that lesson years ago on the Hollebeke case. My advice to my friend and other attorneys is to get up off your knees, go do your job, prepare, collect your paperwork, line up your witnesses, read the law, set your cases for one contested hearing after another, never show fear, be willing to make enemies and billy club Esparza and his cadre of like minded drones into the ground with plain old good aggressive lawyering. In other words, go be good defense attorneys. That's what we do and we have a great track record on representing our clients on cases filed by Esparza on everything from murder to rape to DWI. We never bother to go to Esparza's office.
The above is a true story.