world wide web press
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
════════════
No. 02-0244
════════════
In re L.M.I. and J.A.I., minor children
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Justice Hecht, joined by Justice Jefferson, and joined by Justice Owen on Parts I, IIA, IIIA, and IIIB, dissenting.
“[T]his case,” laments the Court, “has taken its excruciatingly slow course through our judicial system.” Footnote Lamentably, a little more than a third of the excruciation has been in this Court. And just whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that this Court has taken 524 days to decide this case? Why, the parties’, of course, says the Court. Who else could be to blame? Not us. We’ve tried our very best, but “appellate review has been greatly hampered by the shifting, indistinct focus of their complaints”. Footnote Well, well. The facts here are a bit of a problem. We decided six parental rights termination cases last Term, Footnote and took, respectively, 199 days, Footnote 361 days, Footnote 387 days, Footnote 540 days, Footnote 584 days, Footnote and 646 days Footnote to issue an opinion in each. In none of the three cases that the Court took a week, eight weeks, and seventeen weeks longer to decide than it took to decide this case was “appellate review . . . greatly hampered” by poor briefing.
“[W]e still disagree about what the complaints are and whether they were preserved”, the Court moans. Footnote And here again, the fault for our disagreement must in all fairness be laid squarely at the parties’ feet. If only the briefing had been better, the Court’s decision would have been prompt and unanimous. But before taking the Court’s word for this, the reader may wish to know that the parties have filed about 88 pages of briefs and motions in this Court, the reporter’s record of the one-day hearing in the trial court is 328 pages, and the clerk’s record is 117 pages. All told, the record and briefs would not take any one of our law clerks more than half a day to master. Truth is, the Court knew what the issues were in this case from the time it was filed. What the Court has disagreed about for more than a year is not what the issues are, but whether these parents’ rights in their children can be terminated some technical way without having to address their arguments.
Then in what I believe must rank as among the most bizarre statements to be found in an opinion from this Court, the Court says that what it is really trying to do in this case is: discourage foreign adoptions. This, the Court warns, is a mounting plague on our society, and for proof one need look no further than a story in last month’s Miami Herald. Thank goodness this case, poorly briefed and all, came along when it did, and that we delayed our decision until the Miami Herald’s exposé. If we hadn’t turned these parents away for poor briefing, no telling where adoptive parents would have had to go for “simpler and less expensive” Footnote procedures in the future.
The Court says that this case is about appellate procedure. You can’t argue on appeal what you don’t raise in the trial court. Pure and simple. Happens all the time. Too bad, really. Especially when children are at stake. The Court is certainly not unsympathetic to parents who claim that they have been unjustly deprived of their children. Absolutely not. Just can’t be helped, that’s all.
With respect, and all nonsense aside, this case is not about appellate procedure or delay. It is certainly not about discouraging foreign adoptions. It is about the process for taking children from their parents, and it is about the Texas legal system’s treatment of people who do not speak English.
Ricardo Duenas is Hispanic. His native tongue is Spanish. He was at work in a hotel kitchen one day when he was called and told to go immediately to the office of a lawyer he had never met, who as it turned out had been hired by a couple who wanted to adopt Ricardo’s five-month-old twin sons. There he was handed a seven-page, single-spaced affidavit, written in English, and told to sign it. He complied, although it took him two tries to get it right. He was told to initial every line of part of the affidavit, and he did. He initialed this sentence, written in boldface, capital letters:
I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD SIGN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF RELINQUISHMENT IF I AM NOT THINKING CLEARLY BECAUSE OF ILLNESS, MEDICATION, MY EMOTIONAL STATE, OR ANY OTHER REASON.
Apparently a “not” was left out. The affidavit was not read to him in English or Spanish. Parts of it were paraphrased to him briefly in Spanish. He understood it had something to do with losing his sons.
Ricardo contends that he cannot be said to have voluntarily relinquished all rights to his twin sons by signing an affidavit written in English that he could not understand and that was not translated for him. This was his position in the trial court and the focus of the evidence at the one-day hearing (with an interpreter present, appointed by the court); it was his position in the court of appeals, was thoroughly briefed by all parties there, and was decided by that court on its merits; Footnote it is still his position here. His lawyer on appeal has called the termination of his parental rights a violation of constitutional due process; his lawyer in the trial court did not use those exact words. Based on this relatively minor discrepancy and nothing else, the Court refuses to consider Ricardo’s position. His trial lawyer could have been more specific, even though she had only two days to prepare, and the appellate lawyer could have elaborated in briefs and argument. But still there cannot be the slightest doubt what Ricardo’s complaint is: he lost his five-month-old sons because he does not speak English.
Nor can there be any doubt what his wife Luz Maria Sylvestre Inocencio’s complaint is. She contends that in signing her affidavit of relinquishment she was unduly influenced by the kindness of some of the participants in the process and defrauded by promises that her sons’ adoptive parents would send her pictures and update her on their progress. This was her position in the trial court; it was her argument in the court of appeals, was briefed by the parties, and was decided by that court; Footnote it is still her argument here. For the same technical reasons, the Court refuses to consider whether Maria is right. Again, her appointed guardian ad litem at trial and her appellate counsel (who also represents Ricardo) might have been clearer, but there is still no mistaking Maria’s claim.
To miss the simple arguments these parents make, one would seemingly have to understand as little English as Ricardo does. Yet the Court takes an extremely restrictive view of Ricardo and Maria’s brief, reading it to raise only narrow issues that were not ruled on by the trial court. The termination of parental rights, fundamental and constitutional in their magnitude, is thus held to turn on trifling points regarding the construction of appellate briefs. It has long been “our practice to liberally construe [briefs] in order to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants,” Footnote and our rules mandate this practice. Footnote The Court does not follow the practice in this case, where the importance of the rights asserted make it all the more essential. It is fair to say that Ricardo did not make a due process argument to the trial court, but it is not fair to say that his brief, liberally read, makes no broader argument, or that a “just, fair and equitable adjudication” of his parental rights can be made if the core complaint he has made since he was sued is ignored. The same is true for Maria.
To order that children be taken from their parents and given to others is a grave responsibility. To do it solely for technical reasons of appellate procedure, without regard for the parents’ arguments, is hard to justify. But to terminate parental rights as the Court does today, based solely on a rigid reading of a brief, is in my view indefensible. I would decide the case on the merits, not on procedure, and would reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Accordingly, I dissent.
I
The Court’s summary of the record is as crabbed as its reading of petitioners’ brief. From the Court’s opinion, it is impossible even to begin to appreciate the context in which the important issues in this case arise. According to the record, here is what happened. Some events are disputed, as I will indicate, but many are not.
A
In April 1999, Luz Maria Sylvestre Inocencio, age 15, gave birth to twin boys. She contends that Ricardo Duenas, age 25, was their father, and he admits he was. Ricardo and Maria were not married until later in the year. Detective Brian Goetschius had investigated a report that a minor — Maria, as it turned out — had been dancing at a strip joint, Footnote and when he learned she was pregnant, he and his wife, Dawnell, took a personal interest in her. Maria’s older sister, Esther Gonzalez, age 33, a college graduate, deplored Maria’s lifestyle and decided that Maria could not care for her sons properly. Maria and the boys were staying with Esther and Maria’s mother, Guillerma Pruitt, and on September 2, 1999, Guillerma petitioned to be named their sole managing conservator, apparently with Maria’s agreement. Nevertheless, on September 21, Esther called Detective Goetschius to ask for help in placing the twins for adoption. A day or so later, the Goetschiuses told Esther that Dawnell’s sister and brother-in-law, Monica and Miles Montegut, would be willing to adopt Maria’s boys.
On September 24, Esther went to Guillerma’s home and announced that she had “great news”: she had arranged for Maria to give her sons up for adoption that very day. This was certainly news to Maria, since this was the first Esther had mentioned it, but it was not “great” news, and Maria furiously refused to give up her sons. Maria says that she and Esther fought. Esther says Maria was emotional at first but soon calmed down and saw that adoption was best for her boys. Maria and Guillerma say that Esther threatened Maria with juvenile proceedings for having danced nude as a minor if she did not cooperate. Guillerma says that Esther threatened her with truancy proceedings for not having kept Maria in school. Guillerma says that she and Maria feared what would happen to them if they resisted the adoption, and that she and Maria were like “caged animals”, “like sheep to the slaughter”. Esther maintains that she threatened no one and that calm reason simply prevailed over all. In any event, Maria agreed to go to a lawyer’s office in Texas City within the hour and surrender her children. Esther told her that it would be necessary for Ricardo to agree as well, so on the way they stopped at a gasoline station, and Maria telephoned Ricardo at work in Galveston and demanded that he join her. She angrily told him that losing the twins was all his fault.
Ricardo, a native of Honduras with temporary residence in the United States, was working as a cook at a hotel restaurant. He speaks and understands a little English, but there is no evidence that he can read or write English; Spanish is his language. He first heard of the proposed adoption when Maria called him at work on September 24 and demanded that he leave immediately and accompany her to a lawyer’s office. He says, and Maria and Guillerma agree, that he was told that if he failed to cooperate he would be prosecuted for statutory rape. Footnote Esther and others present at the lawyer’s office deny that any threats were ever made. Ricardo rode with Maria to the lawyer’s office, where they met Guillerma and Maria’s brother, Solomon.
The lawyer, Mark Ciavaglia, had been retained by Miles Montegut earlier in the week. Ciavaglia had been in court the morning of September 24, and upon his return to his office he was met with messages from Miles and Esther insisting that adoption papers be signed that day. He drew up the papers while Ricardo, Maria, Esther, Solomon, Guillerma, and the babies waited in his office.
Ciavaglia prepared an affidavit entitled “Father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights” for Ricardo to sign. How much Ricardo understood of the seven-page, single-spaced affidavit is vigorously disputed. The affidavit was not read to Ricardo in English or Spanish, but Ciavaglia paraphrased parts of it briefly and asked Guillerma to translate for Ricardo. Ciavaglia’s paralegal, who understood some Spanish but could not speak it, testified that Guillerma told Ricardo that by signing the affidavit he was giving up his rights to his children but did not tell him he could not change his mind later. Guillerma testified that all she told Ricardo was to sign the affidavit. There is no evidence that Ricardo was able to read the affidavit or that he did read it. He signed it and initialed several sentences, one of which stated, apparently incorrectly (or perhaps not):
I realize that I should sign this affidavit of relinquishment if I am not thinking clearly because of illness, medication, my emotional state, or any other reason.
(Emphasis added.)
Ciavaglia then attempted to obtain Maria’s signature on an identical affidavit. At first she refused, but Ciavaglia offered to have the prospective adoptive parents agree that they would provide her periodic reports and pictures of the boys and would allow her to give them gifts. At that point Maria relented, and when Ciavaglia had discussed the matter with his clients, the Monteguts, and reduced the promise to writing, Maria signed the affidavit.
B
On October 1, a week after the affidavits were signed, the Monteguts sued Ricardo and Maria to terminate their parental rights. The trial court issued an ex parte order temporarily giving the Monteguts custody of the boys. On October 22, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for Maria because she was a minor. The record does not reflect that the guardian filed an answer for Maria.
On November 15, trial was set for a week later, on November 22. On November 17, Ricardo filed an original answer in which he acknowledged paternity. Attached to the answer was his verified “Revocation of Affidavit”, in which he stated: “The Affidavit of Relinquishment was not translated for me.” Ricardo’s attorney reiterated this statement in a motion for continuance filed the day the case was called for trial. At a hearing on the motion the same day, counsel told the trial court:
My basic meritorious defense aside from [having only six days to prepare for trial] is the fact that my client speaks no English, was not translated the affidavit of relinquishment. He was basically picked up at his place of employment [in Galveston], taken to a law office in Texas City, and told if you don’t sign this document, the detective will take you to prison and that was all that was told to him. They did not translate the affidavit word for word or line for line. The attorney involved in that case was Mark Ciavaglia of Texas City. The translation was — of that comment was done by Esther Gonzalez who’s the older sister of Maria Inocencio, the minor mother in this case, and the minor mother also said the detective is outside and they’re going to take you to jail if you don’t sign this document. But it was never translated to him as to what the document meant as far as relinquishing his parental rights. Due to other people at work telling him that that was probably not constitutional and not right, they looked around for an attorney and he finally did hire me.
Counsel for the Monteguts urged the trial court to try the case immediately because the affidavits of relinquishment would expire the next day, the sixtieth day after they were signed. Footnote The court denied the motion for continuance and immediately proceeded to trial.
Ricardo’s counsel requested the presence of a court interpreter to translate the proceedings into Spanish, and the court attempted to locate one. When a suitable interpreter could not be found on such short notice, the court recessed the trial until the morning of November 23.
A principal focus of the brief trial was on whether Ricardo could understand English and what he knew of the affidavit he signed. There was also testimony about the promise the Monteguts made to persuade Maria to sign her affidavit. At the close of the evidence, the court ruled from the bench that Maria and Ricardo had signed their affidavits voluntarily and without duress. The court immediately heard evidence on whether termination of the parents’ relationship was in the children’s best interest, and after a few minutes of testimony from Miles Montegut, concluded that it was. The court then rendered judgment orally terminating Maria’s and Ricardo’s relationship with their sons. The judgment signed December 16 recited:
Luz Maria Inocencio presented issues of fraud, duress, and overreaching to the Court to deny that her Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was signed voluntarily.
Ricardo Duenas present [sic] issues of fraud, duress, and overreaching to the Court to deny that his Father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was signed voluntarily.
The Court found after hearing the evidence that Luz Maria Inocencio executed her Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights voluntarily and was not influenced by fraud, duress, or overreaching.
The Court found after hearing the evidence that Ricardo Duenas executed his Father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights voluntarily and was not influenced by fraud, duress, or overreaching.
Findings made January 21, 2000, echoed the judgment, adding that Ricardo and Maria had married:
Luz Maria Duenas’ signing of the Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was voluntary, and not secured by fraud, duress, or coercion.
* * *
Antonio Duenas’ signing of the Father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was voluntary, and not secured by fraud, duress, or coercion.
The Court finds that Luz Maria Duenas and Antonio Duenas have married after the signing of their Affidavits of Relinquishment of Parental Rights.
Ricardo and Maria filed no post-trial motions.
II
A
I agree with the Court that Ricardo did not raise in the trial court a claim that his constitutional due process rights had been violated. His counsel’s single mention of the word “constitutional” at the hearing on his motion for continuance was insufficient to call the matter to the trial court’s attention, especially in the haste in which the trial was conducted. But even a brief review of the record leaves no question that Ricardo’s complaint was not merely that his due process rights had been violated, but that he could not have voluntarily relinquished his sons by signing an affidavit he did not understand because it was in English. This was the principal focus of the trial.
The Court concludes that Ricardo has not raised anything but a constitutional issue on appeal. It is true that the issue stated in Ricardo’s briefs in the court of appeals and this Court, and on which they focus, is whether his signature “was procured in a manner that violated Ricardo’s due process rights”, and this is the focus of his brief and petition. But we are obliged by rule to treat the issue “as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included.” Footnote Moreover, we construe briefs “liberally . . . in order to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants.” Footnote This practice becomes even more important when fundamental rights are at stake. Ricardo’s briefs in this Court and the court of appeals can fairly be read to raise a broader concern than constitutional due process. After pointing out the requirements of chapter 161 of the Texas Family Code, the briefs state: “Ricardo relinquished one of his most fundamental rights, i.e., the right of parenthood, by signing a document that he could not read and was never put forth to him in his native tongue.” One could well expect more elaboration of the argument, but when the briefs are read in light of the record, Ricardo’s complaint is clear.
It was certainly clear to the Monteguts. In their fifty-page brief in the court of appeals, they argued at great length that the evidence showed that Ricardo understood enough English to know what he was doing and that the affidavit was translated sufficiently for him. The Monteguts devoted only a few sentences of their brief to arguing that Ricardo’s sole complaint was of a denial of due process. The court of appeals restated Ricardo’s complaint on appeal as one of due process, but it also added: “Ricardo claims that because he does not understand English, he did not understand what he was signing.” Footnote The court concluded that “Ricardo’s right to have the affidavit accurately interpreted in a language he understands is a matter of due process,” Footnote but concluded that the evidence failed to show that Ricardo did not understand what he was signing.
As the Court points out, at one point in oral argument Ricardo’s counsel appeared to disavow any complaint except a denial of due process. What the Court does not see fit to mention is that Ricardo’s counsel opened his argument stating: “We further believe that in terms of the statutory requirements of placing a child were totally violated.”
The extent of Ricardo’s understanding of English may be disputed, but there is no dispute that it is limited. It seems unjust to me to terminate his parental rights despite that limited understanding on the ground that his brief is not clearer. To read Ricardo’s brief as rigidly as the Court does simply compounds his limitations. I would consider the substance of his argument: was his affidavit of relinquishment effective given his limited understanding of English?
B
Maria’s guardian ad litem should have been clearer at trial, even though she had only a month to prepare. She should have pointed out more directly Maria’s contention that she had been misled into signing the affidavit of relinquishment by the Monteguts’ promise to her that they would provide her reports and photographs of the boys and would let her send them gifts. There is no question that this is her principal complaint on appeal.
The Court refuses to consider this complaint because Maria did not ask the trial court to rule on whether the Monteguts’ promise was legally unenforceable. But even though Maria did not request the trial court to rule, the trial court did rule: in its judgment it expressly recognized she had “presented issues of fraud, duress, and overreaching to the Court to deny that her [affidavit] was signed voluntarily,” and it specifically found against her on those issues. The Court offers no authority for imposing a requirement that the trial court have ruled on the subsidiary question whether the promises made to Maria were enforceable.
I would therefore consider the substance of Maria’s argument: did the promises made to her defeat the effectiveness of her affidavit of relinquishment?
III
A
Section 161.001 of the Family Code states that a parent-child relationship may be terminated
“if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the parent has . . . (K) executed before . . . the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter . . . ; and (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.” Footnote
An affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights is not a simple instrument. Section 161.103(b) of the Family Code requires that a parent must swear to all of the following:
(1) the name, address, and age of the parent whose parental rights are being relinquished;
(2) the name, age, and birth date of the child;
(3) the names and addresses of the guardians of the person and estate of the child, if any;
(4) a statement that the affiant is or is not presently obligated by court order to make payments for the support of the child;
(5) a full description and statement of value of all property owned or possessed by the child;
(6) an allegation that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child;
(7) one of the following, as applicable:
(A) the name and address of the other parent;
(B)a statement that the parental rights of the other parent have been terminated by death or court order; or
(C) a statement that the child has no presumed father and that an affidavit of status of the child has been executed as provided by this chapter;
(8) a statement that the parent has been informed of parental rights and duties;
(9) a statement that the relinquishment is revocable, that the relinquishment is irrevocable, or that the relinquishment is irrevocable for a stated period of time;
(10) if the relinquishment is revocable, a statement in boldfaced type concerning the right of the parent signing the affidavit to revoke the relinquishment only if the revocation is made before the 11th day after the date the affidavit is executed;
(11) if the relinquishment is revocable, the name and address of a person to whom the revocation is to be delivered; and
(12) the designation of a prospective adoptive parent, the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, if the department has consented in writing to the designation, or a licensed child-placing agency to serve as managing conservator of the child and the address of the person or agency. Footnote
It should go without saying that a person who executes such an affidavit must have some idea of all the facts to which he is required to swear. It is not enough that an affiant understand that he is severing his relationship with his children; he must understand what that means. The purpose of the statute is to prescribe the specific things a person must swear that he knows before he surrenders his children. Furthermore, proof that he did must be clear and convincing.
So the question in this case is this: how much of the affidavit Ricardo signed did he understand? The answer, as a detailed review of the evidence below demonstrates, is that the most he could possibly have understood was that by signing the affidavit he was losing his sons. There is no evidence at all, for example, that Ricardo thought relinquishing his sons was in their best interest, or that he knew what rights and duties parents have, or that he understood his decision was irrevocable for sixty days. The most important part of the affidavit, and the only part that may have been paraphrased to him in Spanish, omits the word “not” and consequently states the very opposite of what was intended. If an English-speaking lawyer could not get the language right, it is hard to imagine how Ricardo could have been expected to understand it.
The Court’s view of this case is that the evidence was conflicting and the trial court made the call, end of story. But only last Term we held that evidence for terminating a parent-child relationship must be carefully reviewed to determine whether it is clear and convincing. Footnote Specifically, we said:
In a legal sufficiency review [of a termination of parental rights], a court should look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. Footnote
In my view, when one considers all the evidence regarding what Ricardo understood or could have understood and then reads the affidavit he signed, it is impossible to conclude that there is any clear and convincing evidence that he understood a word of what he signed.
Ricardo testified through an interpreter. He stated that he had been in the United States four years and was working as a cook. His supervisor, he said, spoke only English, and a co-worker had to translate for him. He stated that he could neither read nor write English. Asked whether he understood some English, he answered, “Very little. A word here and there.” Regarding the signing of the affidavit of relinquishment, he stated that he understood only that he was required to sign and initial the affidavit, nothing else. Specifically, he testified as follows, as translated by the interpreter:
Q Now, Mr. Duenas, could you tell us what happened on the day that the Affidavits of Relinquishment of Parental Rights were signed?
A Uh, they picked me up at my work. They took me to an office. What they have that papers that I signed that I didn’t know what I was signing and nobody explained to me anything.
* * *
Q Do you recall who gave you the papers?
A Well, I don’t know if it was a lawyer or notary, but they gave me the paper. He said, “Sign here, and then date it and initial it there,” and that was it.
* * *
Q Did — did the man that gave you the papers to initial and to sign, did he translate for you what those papers meant?
A No.
* * *
Q So all you know is that the last page has your signature; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And the second to the last page has your initials; is that correct? Actually, it’s the third.
A Yes.
Q And are those the areas where the man told you to put your initials?
A Yes.
Q And in putting those initials, did that man or the secretaries or anybody in that room, did they translate to you what that document meant?
A No.
* * *
Q And, Mr. Duenas, how much English, if any, do you understand?
A I only understand “put your name” and “initial that thing there.” That’s all.
Q Was that what was translated to you?
A Yes. It was translated to me, but I understood that. Only that.
Maria verified that Ricardo does not speak English and cannot understand it. “One time,” she testified, “I told him to say the word ‘seagull.’ That’s what I got out of him.” Regarding his signing the affidavit of relinquishment, she testified as follows:
Q . . . [W]ho translated the document for Mr. Duenas?
A Nobody translated.
Q What was Mr. Duenas told he was signing?
A When I got there, I didn’t really tell him what it was. I just told him, “Put your name here, put the date there.”
Q Did any of the secretaries for the attorney translate to Mr. Duenas what was in that document?
A No. I don’t think anybody there spoke Spanish.
Q So the attorney didn’t translate it either for him?
A No. He was just reading it in English, pointing and then out — because there would be sometimes that Ricardo wouldn’t catch on and he would point and say, “Put your name there,” but then he would just initial it. So I’d have to tell him — (speaking Spanish) — “Put your whole name.”
Q And did your mother or your sister translate the seven-page document to Mr. Duenas?
A My sister doesn’t speak good Spanish. My mom — she tried to start out telling him, and I told her, “Shush.”
Q So no one in that office, while Mr. Duenas was signing the Affidavit of Relinquishment, explained to him that this document meant that he was giving up his rights as a parent forever; is that correct?
A No.
Q And no one explained to him by signing this document he couldn’t change his mind until after 60 days —
A No.
Q — is that correct? And by that, I mean translating it into Spanish what he understood the document meant?
A No.
Q To your knowledge, had Mr. Duenas ever talked about giving up his babies for adoption or anything like that?
A No, of course not. He used to tell me if I wanted to be stupid and — and if I didn’t act right, that he would take the babies and he would raise them. And I would tell him, “You’re crazy.”
Maria’s mother, Guillerma, understands both English and Spanish, and she spoke to Duenas in Spanish in the lawyer’s office. This is what she testified:
Q Did [the lawyer] read at this time to anybody in Spanish?
A No. No, he can’t read it in Spanish.
Q Okay. Did anybody ask you to — or let me rephrase it. Did you translate any of the documents for anybody else?
A No, ma’am. I wasn’t given the chance.
* * *
Q Did you tell Ricardo Duenas what the papers were about in Spanish?
A No, no. Uh, I wasn’t given that opportunity.
Q So you didn’t ever speak Spanish at all during your — the time that you were at Mr Ciavaglia’s [the lawyer]?
A The little words I said, it was not that much. It was my own, uh — Mr. Ciavaglia wanted someone to interpret so he could understand what was going on, and that’s all.
Q And so you did say a few words in Spanish, didn’t you?
A A few, a few.
Q And what was it that you said? Tell us in English what you told Mr. Duenas.
A I looked at him and I told him that, uh, Mr. Ciavaglia wanted those papers, uh, interpreted to him.
Q And what else did you tell him?
A Nothing, nothing.
Q And didn’t you tell him, Mr. Duenas, that these were papers that they wanted him to sign where he was giving up his rights to the babies? Didn’t you tell him that in Spanish?
A No, no. No.
Esther, Maria’s sister who arranged for the adoption, testified that she understood some Spanish but could not speak it fluently and could not and did not converse with Ricardo. As for what Ricardo understood about what was happening, this is her account of the events:
Q . . . And then did you discuss the father [with the lawyer] and how to get him involved in this process?
A The babies looked like him, but we weren’t absolutely sure that he was the father. DNA testing had not been done. It was assumed that he was. And I am not fluent in Spanish, so I cannot communicate with him to — with him. So, if anything, it would have to be told to him. My mother and my sister would have to be the ones.
* * *
Q Did Ricardo Duenas make any motions or do anything that would indicate that he knew what was going on that day?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A He agreed to put his initials in the areas where he was — where he needed, and he was asked over and over again if he understood.
Q And who asked him over and over if he understood?
A Mark [the lawyer] asked him, and my mother asked him also.
Q And did your mother ask him in Spanish if he understood what he was doing that day?
A Yes.
Q But Mr. Ciavaglia did not speak Spanish to Ricardo Duenas; is that right?
A Right. That is correct.
* * *
Q [By the Court:] Okay. And can you tell me if someone explained each of those lines to him, or was it just a cursory summary, or was it a detailed explanation?
A Mark [the lawyer] explained it in detail. And Ricardo kept on, like he acknowledged what was being said. And then my mother made an attempt also in Spanish and asked Ricardo did he understand, and he said yes, and he continued putting his initials on there.
Q [By the Court:] But how could he understand if no one went line by line in Spanish and read that to him? That is — that’s my dilemma right here.
A I can’t read his mind, ma’am. I don’t know. He said he understood. That’s all I know.
Q [By the Court:] And who asked him if he understood?
A Mark did.
Q [By the Court:] In English?
A Yes.
Q [By the Court:] And he answered in English? I mean, if you can remember.
A He did not speak much. He just nodded his head. I don’t recall him speaking much at all.
* * *
Q Based on your observations of Ricardo Duenas and your sister in Mr. Ciavaglia’s office, do you believe both of them understood what was going on?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you believe that the relinquishment document was, in fact, explained to Ricardo Duenas in Spanish?
A Yes. As much as he needed, yes.
* * *
Q Okay. At one point your mother attempted to translate the document for Mr. Duenas; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And what happened during that translation?
A She asked him if he understood all the details, and my little sister also communicated with him in Spanish.
Q So it was actually both your mother and sister that were talking to him in Spanish?
A Yes. I remember both of them doing that, doing some —
* * *
Q And the — are you sitting here and telling the Court today that on September 24th, when the attorney and the secretaries presented the seven-page document to Mr. Duenas, that those seven pages were translated to Mr. Duenas in Spanish?
A Each page was not translated word for word, no.
* * *
Q So the total sum of the translations were actually three or four sentences, weren’t they?
A I don’t recall exactly.
Q It was very quick, wasn’t it, the translation that your mother supposedly — or Maria gave to him (indicating)?
A It wasn’t within, like, 30-minute time intervals, no. They were not that long.
Q Would three or four sentences be about right, the translation that your mother did or that Maria did?
A I don’t recall exactly how many lines were said.
* * *
Q You testified earlier that you’re “not very fluent in Spanish.” Wasn’t those your exact words?
A Conversational Spanish, yes.
Q Okay. So, then, how is it that you can sit here today and tell this Court that Mr. Duenas had heard as much as he needed to hear?
A I didn’t state that.
Q Yes, you did. You didn’t just say on testimony from [counsel for the Monteguts] — on your direct testimony that he heard, and I quote, “as much as he needed”?
A Okay. As much as he needed apparently to understand because he nodded and he acknowledged that he understood repeatedly.
Q Okay. But it was being read to him in English, correct?
A That’s corret.
Q Okay. If I started speaking to you in French right now — you don’t speak French, do you?
A No.
Q And I kind of nodded my head and was speaking to you in French, would you have any idea what I was talking about if I just started speaking French right now?
A No.
Q Okay. But if I smiled at you and nodded my head and looked sort of favorably upon you, is it possible that you might just nod your head back?
* * *
A No, because I wouldn’t know what I would be agreeing to.
Q But how would you even know you were agreeing to anything if you didn’t understand the French language?
A I would not be able to elicit a response if I did not understand what’s being said.
Q Okay. Thank you. Now, you said that on the 21st you called Mr. Ciavaglia’s office and you had talked to Detective Goetschius and you got all of this arranged before you went over there on the 24th. Didn’t you think it might be a good idea to talk to either Ricardo or [Maria] before you got all this arranged to find out whether they were even in agreement with it?
A I have not had any communication with Ricardo one on one because I cannot converse fluently in Spanish.
* * *
Q On September 24th, after Mr. Duenas signed the papers, you spoke to him; is that correct?
A After?
Q After the papers were signed.
A Outside of the lawyer’s office.
Q And would you tell the Court what you said?
A I told him in English — I walked to him and shook his hand. I told him, “Thank you. What you are doing is very courageous.”
Q And did your mother translate what you said?
A I asked her so he could make sure to understand what I was saying. And she started to — and then she said — I can’t recall word for word, that, “Oh, he says he understands. I don’t need to.”
Mark Ciavaglia had been in practice six years when he agreed to represent the Monteguts in adopting Ricardo’s and Maria’s sons. He does not understand Spanish. Concerning the events in his office, he testified as follows:
Q How did you receive the information [for the affidavit of relinquishment] for Ricardo Duenas?
A I asked him verbally.
Q And was he able to understand what you asked him and relay that information?
A He seemed to be. He seemed to understand English and responded to questions.
Q When you asked for his name, did he respond with his name correct — give you a detail of his name, or did he write it out? How did he do it?
A He pronounced it, and I just wrote it. As I wrote his last name, I spelled it out loud; and he acknowledged that was correct.
Q And you don’t speak Spanish, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And he — did he respond to what is your address and other information, what is your Social Security number, what is you Texas driver’s license number?
A At some point when I asked for his Social Security number, I don’t recall who responded or — as to the address. I was asking, just writing the information down. As to the question about his Social Security number, uh, he didn’t really respond. And I don’t remember if it was Maria or [Guillerma] that said he doesn’t have a Social Security number, didn’t have his wallet with him.
* * *
Q What specifically did you tell the parties?
A I again introduced myself and told them — or stated to them, “Does everyone understand why we’re here today? You’re here to sign documents. I’m going to offer to you some documents for your inspection and your signature that will begin the process of adopting these children.”
Q And did Ricardo Duenas do anything that would indicate whether he understood what you were saying?
A He said very little. During the course of that statement, I said — I kind of looked at each and every one of them. I said, “Do you understand? Do you understand?” Ricardo was to my left, and I said, “Do you understand?” And he nodded. I specifically said, “Do you understand,” in English. And he nodded his head yes and he mouthed yep. Like yep.
* * *
Q And what discussion was had with Mr. Duenas about his document?
A I explained that I would offer to each of them two documents. I turned to Mr. Duenas and I said, “This document, the first document, is an affidavit that acknowledges your paternity.” And I, knowing that sometimes legalese is intimidating for laypersons, I asked, uh — I kind of made sure that they were aware in common English what that meant. I said, “By signing this document, you’re admitting that you’re the father of these children.” And there’s some other reference, statutory information.
Q Okay. Now, did he say yes, he understood, or no, he didn’t? Or did he acknowledge anything?
A He didn’t really acknowledge either way. He just looked at the document.
Q Okay. Now, with regards to the Affidavit of Relinquishment of his parental rights, did you explain what that document was?
A I did.
Q And did he make any response whatsoever to your explanation?
A Not at all.
Q Okay. Was there any discussion amongst the people in the room whether he understood or whether he should have a translator or anything?
A The documents that I offered first, the Affidavit of Relinquishment, as we were going through the form and I was explaining it to him, and I use the same term each time, “By signing this document, you fully, finally, and forever give up all parental rights to these children.” As I was going through that, Maria noted — she was sitting across from Mr. Duenas. She noted that her name was spelled incorrectly on the document.
Q Okay. So what happened then?
A Well, at that point she corrected the spelling of her last name. I went back and corrected all the documents. And this is after he had signed it, okay.
Q So, then, he had to resign the documents, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Now, before he resigned the documents, was there any point in time that anybody in Spanish went over any parts or all of those documents?
A Yes.
Q What happened and who supposedly was it that went over those documents with him in Spanish?
A Ms. Pruitt.
Q And would that be Maria’s mother?
A That’s correct.
Q And what — what do you recall her doing with regards to that document?
A There’s a specific part of the form that requires a set of initials by each one. It’s a double-spaced section. And it denotes if — I’m paraphrasing — it says that they understand the importance of this document. . . . I directed his attention specifically to this section and began to read it. And at that point, Esther said, “Mom, why don’t you translate that to him to make sure he understands?” At that point, Maria turned to her mother in a very agitated fashion and said, “He don’t give a shit. He don’t even buy diapers.” So, nonetheless, Ms. Pruitt did continue to, uh, what sounded to me was to translate that in Spanish.
Q Did it take her awhile to read that into Spanish?
A She didn’t seem to read it. She was repeating what I was saying, which was paraphrasing this language.
Q Okay. And was that what you were saying basically that, “I understand that I’m executing this relinquishment, and I’m giving up my rights to my children”? . . . In your words, how did you explain that in English before it was translated.
A What I told him was that, “This document is very — excuse me — very important. And that by signing it, you’re acknowledging that you understand this document and you understand the consequences of this document, and that is that you fully, finally, and forever give up any parental rights to your children. And you also relinquish your right and give up your right to change your mind.”
Q [By the Court:] And you said that pretty much the way you just told me?
A That’s correct.
Q [By the Court:] And you’re telling me that Ms. Pruitt, the grandmother, interpreted that after you said it in English?
A She was speaking in Spanish. I can’t say.
Q [By the Court:] You can’t speak Spanish. But you think she was translating what you said in English?
A That’s correct.
Q [By the Court:] Go ahead.
Q And then what happened after the — Ms. Pruitt said things in Spanish to Mr. Duenas?
A Uh, Mr. Duenas then initialed beside each line. He executed the document in the signature spaces as provided in front of the witnesses. Uh, and the witnesses signed and, uh, the person that was the notary notarized the document.
* * *
Q Mr. Ciavaglia, are you telling this Court that Ms. Pruitt translated these seven pages to my client, Mr. Duenas?
A No, ma’am.
Q In fact, she probably said a sum total of three or four little sentences the whole time she was there in Spanish to my client, didn’t she?
A She said more than that.
Q And when you would say, “You need to sign on this blank,” and the translation would have been (speaking Spanish). If that was repeated several different times, you don’t know that the translation was, “You’re giving up your rights to your children forever,” and rather the translation is, “You need to sign on this line, you need to sign on this line, and you need to sign on this line,” which was being translated? Do any of your staff know what Ms. Pruitt was translating to Mr. Duenas?
A I could testify as to what I know; and I do not speak Spanish and I do not know what she translated.
* * *
Q What you’re saying is that you made an assumption that because — when you were talking in English and he was nodding his head, that he understood what was going on?
A I believed he knew what was going on, yes.
Q And would you know that in pointing to him where he needed to sign, that if someone was telling him you need to sign there, if there was — you said he was very quiet. In fact, he hardly talked at all is what you said a few minutes ago; is that correct? Mr. Duenas was very quiet?
A Yes.
Q In fact, he hardly talked at all?
A Correct.
* * *
Q And you assumed that by Mr. Duenas’ silence, that he was agreeing to everything; is that correct?
A I assumed he understood.
* * *
Q Okay. And isn’t it true that in the draft that had to be redone because of the misspelling of the name, that at one point Mr. Duenas — forgive me — Mr. Duenas had either initialed where he was supposed to sign or signed where he was supposed to initial or vice versa?
A That’s correct.
Q Okay. So what — wouldn’t that kind of indicate to you that he didn’t understand what he was supposed to do in that situation?
A No.
Q Okay. And while Ms. Pruitt was talking with Mr. Duenas, you don’t have any idea what she was talking to him about, do you?
A In Spanish?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Okay. And you said that you were basically paraphrasing the document; is that correct? And that she was repeating what you were paraphrasing?
A Yes.
Q Don’t you think it’s kind of possible since we’re repeating paraphrasing that something might have been lost in the translation?
A Since I don’t know — you’re asking me?
Q Is it possible?
A Is it possible? Sure.
Finally, Ciavaglia’s paralegal, Laura Hernandez, was present at the meeting and witnessed the Duenas’s execution of the affidavit of relinquishment. Hernandez understands Spanish but cannot speak it. She testified to what she observed as follows:
Q Did — at the beginning of the conference, did you have occasion to hear Mr. Ciavaglia say anything to the parties?
A He just explained what was going on, and if they didn’t — you know, if they didn’t want to go through with it, they didn’t have to. And they wanted to make sure that everybody knew what was going on and they understood what was going on.
Q Did you — did you notice whether Ricardo Duenas actually made any indication that he understood? Just from the preliminary statements that Mr. Ciavaglia gave, that he understood?
A We weren’t sure if he understood. And Esther kept saying, “Make sure he understands what he’s saying.” And then Maria said, “Well, he don’t care.”
Q Okay. And are you talking about later on as he was presented with this Affidavit of Relinquishment?
A Right.
* * *
Q Okay. Did Mr. Ciavaglia explain the papers to Maria Inocencio?
A Yes, he did.
Q Was his explanation to her more detailed than it was to Ricardo Duenas?
A No, because I explained it to Maria, and then she said okay. Then he started to explain it to the father, and he, you know — he kind of looked like he didn’t know what he was saying. Then the grandma translated it to him, and he was shaking his head yes. When she was translating — I understand Spanish. I can understand it, but I can’t speak it back. And she was telling him the correct things.
Q Okay. So would you tell the Court what it was that the grandmother was actually telling Mr. Duenas?
A That he was giving up his rights of the children, and that he will no longer be responsible for them. And that once this is all through, that’s it, you know.
Q So did she tell him whether or not he would have an opportunity to change his mind later?
A No, she didn’t.
Q Okay. Based on what you heard that the grandmother translated in Spanish to Mr. Duenas, do you believe he fully understood —
A Yes.
Q — what was happening?
A Yes, because he kept shaking his head yes, he understood. And she just kept telling him to sign it, just sign it. Maria kept telling him just to sign it.
Q So Maria didn’t really want to have much discussion?
A No . . . .
* * *
Q Now, you were actually a witness on both the father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights and also the mother’s; is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And do you feel, based on your observations in the room and what you saw and what you heard of the parties, that they both understood fully what they were signing?
A Yes, ma’am.
* * *
Q And you heard what Esther was telling Maria and what Maria was telling Mr. Duenas?
A Yes.
Q And in the seven pages of the affidavit, you’re saying that Ms. Pruitt translated that affidavit to Mr. Duenas?
A She was just telling him that he was giving up his rights as a father because Maria kept saying, “Don’t worry about this. Just tell him to sign it there and he’ll sign it.”
Q And, in effect, Ms. Pruitt didn’t tell him about terminating parental rights. She just said, “Sign it,” didn’t she?
A No.
Q “Just sign here and sign here”?
A Maria was saying, “Just sign it.” The grandmother was trying to translate it to him, but Maria was the one that kept pushing. “Initial, sign it.”
Q In fact, the grandmother never translated to him that his rights are going to be terminated right then and there?
A She’s just saying that his father — he wasn’t going to be the father anymore, that he’s giving up his rights. That’s what she was telling him.
Q And you’re saying she was telling him that in Spanish?
A Yes, she was.
Q And she wasn’t telling him to sign here and sign there, sign the different parts? She never told him that?
A Maria was pointing out to him where to sign, and he would sign it.
Q And the attorney was there during the times that Ms. Pruitt was translating, is that correct?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And did Mr. Duenas ever say anything during that whole process of signing any of the affidavits?
A He did not.
Q Never said a word?
A Never said a word.
Q Did anyone verify with him that he understood?
A They asked him if he understood, and he said yes.
In sum, there is no evidence that Ricardo read the affidavit of relinquishment or that he was able to read it, and the uncontradicted evidence of several witnesses is that the affidavit was not translated to Ricardo. Several witnesses testified that they thought or believed or assumed that Ricardo understood, and that he indicated by nodding his head or mouthing “yep” that he understood, but none of these witnesses stated what it was exactly that Ricardo understood. It seems fairly clear that he knew he was losing his children, but the paralegal, who understood Spanish, testified without contradiction that he was never told in Spanish that his affidavit would be irrevocable for sixty days. There is no evidence that Ricardo thought adoption was in his sons’ best interest, as he was required by statute to swear, or that he understood the parental rights he was losing, again as the statute required him to swear.
What various witnesses’ meant when they testified that Ricardo “understood” cannot be appreciated without reading the affidavit Ricardo signed. This is what it stated:
FATHER’S AFFIDAVIT OF RELINQUISHMENT
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
STATE OF TEXAS }
COUNTY OF GALVESTON }
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared RICARDO ANTONIO DUENAS who, by me being duly sworn, in the presence of the undersigned credible witnesses, made the following statements, and swore that they were true:
“My name is RICARDO ANTONIO DUENAS. Social Security Number , Driver’s License Number [ ] in the State of Texas . My age is 26 years. My residence address in 3714 Avenue S, Galveston, Galveston County, Texas 77550.”
“I am the father of twin children:
[L.M.I.], a male child born on April 9, 1999, and [J.A.I.], a male child born on April 9, 1999, both twin children born to LUZ MARIA INOCENCIO at UTMB, Galveston, Galveston County, Texas.”
“The natural mother of the children, LUZ MARIA SYLVESTRE INOCENCIO and the children reside at 806c – 3RD Avenue South, Texas City, Galveston County, Texas 77590.”
“I am not presently obligated by court order or decree to make payments for child support in this or any court or jurisdiction.”
“No property is owned or possessed by the children.”
“I designate MILES QUENTIN MONTEGUT and MONICA GAIL MONTEGUT , qualified persons, as managing co-conservators of the children. I have been informed that my parental rights, powers, duties, and privileges are as follows:
1. the right to have physical possession, to direct the moral and religious training and the [sic] establish the legal domicile of the children;
2. the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the children;
3. the duty to support the children, including providing the child with clothing, food, shelter, medical care, and education;
4. the duty to manage the estate of the children, except when a guardian of the estate has been appointed;
5. the right to the services and earnings of the children;
6. the power to consent to marriage, to enlistment in the Armed Forces of the United States, and to medical, psychiatric and surgical treatment;
7. the power to receive and give receipt for payments for the support of the children and to hold or disburse any funds for the benefit of the children;
8. the power to represent the children in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the children;
9. the right to inherit from and through the children; and,
10. any other rights, privileges, duties and powers existing between a parent and children by virtue of law, including decisions concerning medical care and treatment.”
I freely and voluntarily give and relinquish to the above-named managing co-conservators all of my parental rights, powers, duties, and privileges.”
“I fully understand that a lawsuit will be promptly filed in a Court in Galveston County, Texas to terminate forever the parent-child relationship between me and the above-named children. I fully understand that the termination suit may or may not be combined with a suit to adopt the children. I understand that either way, once the Court terminates my parental rights, I have no further say concerning my children, whether or not my children are adopted then or at some later time.”
“I know that I have the right to appear personally before the Court, with an attorney of choice, to testify about my desires with respect to my children. However, I do not want to go to court in person. I have been encouraged to seek independent legal advice, but I do not feel that is necessary. I want this Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights presented to the Court.”
“Because I do not want to testify in person before the court, I freely and voluntarily waive and give up my right to the issuance, service, and return of citation, notice and all other process in any suit to terminate my parental rights or in any suit to terminate my parental rights joined with a suit to adopt. By executing this affidavit and desiring to having [sic] it presented to the court on my behalf, I freely and voluntarily consent to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of Texas. I do not want to be informed further about the lawsuit, and I waive and give up my right to be given notice about anything [sic] proceedings in the lawsuit. I specifically agree that a final hearing in the lawsuit may be held at any time without further notice to me. I waive and give up my right to have the official court reporter make a record of the testimony in the lawsuit. Furthermore, I do not want to be mailed or given a copy of the judgment terminating my parental rights and do not want to be notified of the signing, rendition, or enty of that judgment. Therefore, I waive and give up my right insist [sic] that those things be done. I also consent to have any suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed or to be filed with respect to the above-identified children be decided by a family law master appointed pursuant to Texas Government Code § 54.001.”
“If I am in the armed services of the United States at this time, that fact in no way interfered with my freedom the [sic] make my decision to execute this affidavit, and, insofar as this matter is concerned, I waive all rights, privileges, and exemptions existing or that may hereafter exist in my favor under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, including the appointment of counsel to represent me in this cause.”
“I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT I MAY NOT BE FURTHER INFORMED ABOUT THE TERMINATION SUIT OR ABOUT ANY OTHER HEARING OR PROCEEDING AFFECTING THE CHILD NAMED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT.”
“Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the children. I understand that I made this termination possible by executing this affidavit. With that in mind, I hereby declare that this Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights is and shall be irrevocable for sixty (60) days. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, IF I CHANGE MY MIND, I CANNOT FORCE THE MANAGING CONSERVATOR TO DESTROY, REVOKE, OR RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT AND THAT I CANNOT TAKE BACK OR UNDO THIS AFFIDAVIT IN ANY WAY DURING THIS 60-DAY PERIOD. I FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT MY PARENTAL RIGHTS PROBABLY WILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENDED FOR ALL TIME BEFORE THIS 60-DAY PERIOD EXPIRES. I also understand that, if my parental rights have not been ended within this 60-day period, this affidavit shall remain in full force and effect until I revoke it. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, AT ANY TIME UNTIL THIS AFFIDAVIT IS REVOKED, MY PARENTAL RIGHTS MAY BE TERMINATED FOR ALL TIME.”
“I have carefully considered alternate plans for my children’s future and have obtained the advice of whatever family members, friends, or other persons and professionals I feel were necessary to help make this decision. This decision is very difficult for me to make, and under other circumstances I might have made a different decision. Nevertheless, under the circumstances I find myself in, I have decided that I cannot provide properly for my children’s physical and emotional needs, and I want MILES QUENTIN MONTEGUT and MONICA GAIL MONTEGUT to provide my children a permanent home. I declare that I fully understand the meaning of this Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights and the finality of my action in signing it, and understanding all of this, I am signing it freely and voluntarily, and with the firm conviction that this decision is the best available alternative for my children.”
“I am signing this affidavit today because I want to sign it and not because any other person or persons want me to sign it. I am ready emotionally and in every other way to make the decision I am making today. I am signing this affidavit in the presence of the two undersigned witnesses, each of whom is present and acting as a witness. I want them to be here and witness my signature. I am also signing this affidavit before a notary public who has asked me under oath whether or not each and every statement in this affidavit is true and correct and has advised me not to sign it unless it is true.”
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
s/ RD
“I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD NOT SIGN THIS AFFIDAVIT UNTIL I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD EACH WORD, SENTENCE, AND PARAGRAPH IN IT. I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD NOT SIGN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF RELINQUISHMENT IF THERE IS ANY THOUGHT IN MY MIND THAT I MIGHT SOMEDAY SEEK TO CHANGE MY MIND. I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD [SIC] SIGN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF RELINQUISHMENT IF I AM NOT THINKING CLEARLY BECAUSE OF ILLNESS, MEDICATION, MY EMOTIONAL STATE, OR ANY OTHER REASON. BECAUSE I REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT THIS DECISION IS FOR THE FUTURE OF MY CHILDREN, I HAVE PUT MY INITIALS BESIDE EVERY LINE OF THE PARAGRAPH SO THAT IT WILL ALWAYS BE UNDERSTOOD THAT I HAVE READ THIS AFFIDAVIT OF RELINQUISHMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND DESIRE TO SIGN IT.”
SIGNED on this 24 day of Septieber [sic] , 1999.
s/ Ricardo A. Duenas
s/ Laura D. Hernandez s/ Esther Gonzalez
1232-2nd Ave. North 8161 ½ Grofton
Texas City, TX 77590 Houston TX 77017
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS }
COUNTY OF GALVESTON }
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority and notary public, on this day personally appeared RICARDO ANTONIO DUENAS, who, being by me duly sworn on his oath, deposed and said that he is the affiant and that he has read the foregoing Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights and that the statements contained therein are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct.
This Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was subscribed and sworn before me on the 24th day of September , 1999, by
[notary seal] s/ Claudia Tibaldo
Notary Public, State [sic] of Galveston
STATE OF TEXAS }
COUNTY OF GALVESTON }
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Laura D. Hernandez and Esther Gonzalez , witnesses whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument in their respective capacity, and both persons being by me duly sworn, declared to me, in the presence and hearing of the affiant , [sic] that the affiant had declared to them that the foregoing instrument is an Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights, that he executed it as such and wanted each of them to sign it as a witness to his execution of the same; and upon the oaths each witness stated further that he/she did sign the same as witness, in the presence of the affiant and at his request, that affiant was at that time eighteen years of age, or older, was of sound mind, and executed the affidavit of his own free will; that each of said witnesses was then at least eighteen years of age.
s/ Ricardo A. Duenas
RICARDO ANTONIO DUENAS
s/ Laura D. Hernandez
Witness
s/ Esther Gonzalez
Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME by RICARDO ANTONIO DUENAS, the Affiant, and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by said witnesses Laura D. Hernandez and Esther Gonzalez on this 24th day of September , 1999.
[notary seal] s/ Claudia Tibaldo
Notary Public, State of Texas
Contrary to what the affidavit states, there is no evidence that Ricardo had any idea what his “parental rights, powers, duties, and privileges were, or that he had “the right to appear personally before the Court, with an attorney of choice,” or that the affidavit was irrevocable for sixty days. The careful reader will note that in what appears to be the most crucial part of the affidavit, where the words are all in upper case and bold font, and where the affiant must initial every line, Ricardo was required to swear:
I realize that I should sign this affidavit of relinquishment if I am not thinking clearly because of illness, medication, my emotional state, or any other reason.
(Emphasis added.) It seems obvious to me that this was an error, but then I speak English. It would be much less obvious to me if, like Ricardo, I did not.
B
To recite the evidence exhaustively and verbatim, as I have just done, is what the Court calls “effectively second-guess[ing] the trial court’s resolution of a factual dispute”. I do not see how one could be truer to the record than by quoting it, which of course, the Court does not do. The Court bases its second-guessing accusations on a recharacterization of the record that simply does not support the Court’s conclusions.
The Court has three points. First, the Court says, “witnesses testified that Duenas appeared to understand what was transpiring at the affidavit signing.” Footnote That is true, of course, as the record just quoted shows. But none of these witnesses testified that Duenas did understand what was transpiring, or that he said he did, or that anyone present who spoke Spanish could tell from talking with him that he did. From all the witnesses said about Duenas’s appearance, one cannot tell whether he was a Shakespearean professor bemused into silence or someone for whom all of the English conversation and the seven-page affidavit were unintelligible gibberish.
Second, the Court says, “Duenas’s testimony about his ability to understand English was inconsistent”. Footnote That, too, is true. But the only inconsistency to which the Court points is that Ricardo’s statement that he understood no English followed by his admission that he understood when he was told, “sign here”. I cannot fathom how that inconsistency is any evidence that Ricardo could read and understand a seven-page affidavit. If it were, then why did Ciavaglia ask that his summary of the affidavit be translated into Spanish for Ricardo?
Finally, the Court says that the trial court could have determined that Ricardo was not a credible witness because he could not have worked in a hotel kitchen as long as he had and not have understood better English, because he minimized how much of the affidavit was translated for him, and because of his responses and demeanor. Footnote This, too, is all true; the trial court could have made all of these determinations. But a witness’s lack of credibility cannot establish the opposite of his assertions. This is simple logic. The trial court may not have believed Ricardo when he said he could not understand English, but that disbelief is no evidence that Ricardo was a Shakespearean professor. Apart from Ricardo’s credibility, there must be some positive evidence that he could understand English — and not just some evidence — clear and convincing evidence.
Nothing in the record that the Court says has been overlooked has been omitted from the recitation of the evidence contained in this opinion. The Court cannot point to any evidence whatever that clearly and convincingly shows that Ricardo had the knowledge that the Family Code requires before a parent can voluntarily relinquish a child.
C
Conspicuously, the Monteguts do not argue that their promise to Maria is enforceable. Even if it were, I would hold that such promises precluded Maria’s affidavit of relinquishment from being effective. There is no question in this case that the promise was made; it was given to Maria in writing. Nor is there any question that Maria signed her affidavit of relinquishment only because the promises were made. Under these circumstances, I would hold that Maria’s relinquishment was not voluntary.
IV
The Court’s strained view of the record casts doubt on the sincerity of its assurance that it is not unsympathetic to Ricardo’s and Maria’s claims. One ordinarily hopes for a little more generosity from one’s sympathizers. But the true measure of the Court’s non-unsympathy is reflected in its argument, never raised in the case, that, oh and by the way, Ricardo would not be entitled to his children even if his relinquishment had been involuntary because he may not have been the father, was unfit, and probably has no constitutional rights anyway. Before today, there has not been so much as a whisper of doubt that Ricardo was the father of Maria’s twin sons. Both Ricardo and Maria swore to that fact. Even Maria’s sister acknowledged that the boys “looked like” Ricardo. Were the issue in question, it could easily be determined — but in a proceeding not based on his affidavit of relinquishment. There are also procedures for challenging Ricardo’s fitness as a father, but they do not include indictment by the Supreme Court of Texas. To refuse to consider Ricardo’s argument because it has not been raised properly, and then to make an argument against him that no one has ever raised, is not what immediately comes to mind when one thinks of not unsympathetic.
* * * * *
The record contains no clear and convincing evidence — I agree with Justice Owen for the reasons she explains that such evidence is required — that Ricardo understood and swore to the statements required by section 161.103(b) of the Family Code for relinquishment of parental rights. To the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that Ricardo has lost rights among the most precious guaranteed by law simply because he does not understand English. If Ricardo could read the Court’s opinion, he would no doubt be surprised (and dismayed) to learn that he is not entitled to a decision on the only claim he has ever made because his lawyer in the trial court phrased it differently than his lawyer on appeal. The one benefit of Ricardo’s inability to understand English is that he will not be able to read of the injustice that has been done to him. He should at least have a paraphrase of the Court’s opinion, however, just as his affidavit was paraphrased for him. I offer the following:
¡Peligro!
Si usted no puede hablar Inglés,
usted puede perder a sus niños.
Nathan L. Hecht
Justice
Opinion delivered: September 18, 2003
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Judge considers motion in Hall case
world wide web press
Austin News
•Buy a Car
•Sell a Car
•Dealer Specials
•Browse Newspaper
Ads
•Auto Enthusiasts
•Find a Home
•Sell a Home
•New Construction
•Apartments.com
•Rentals
•Find a Job
•Post a Resume
•Job Seeker Login
•Employer Login
•Post a Job
•Contact Us
•Browse All Ads
•Place an Ad
•Local Stores
Keyword:
•Sign Up for Special Offers
•Shop/Buy
•Services/Notices
•Dating Center
•Browse Classifieds
•Ticket Center
•Sell a Home
•Sell a Car
•Sell Stuff
•Post a Job
Judge considers motion in Hall case
Laura Hall is accused of helping suspect flee country
06:20 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 26, 2005
KVUE News
The woman accused of helping a murder suspect leave Austin tried to have the case against her thrown out of court Wednesday.
Laura Hall
Laura Hall, 22, is accused of helping Colton Pitonyak. Pitonyak is charged with murder in the death of Jennifer Cave, 21.
Police found her dismembered body in his West Campus apartment in August. Pitonyak and Hall were later found in Mexico. Police say Hall helped Pitonyak try to escape to Mexico.
Hall's attorney tried to convince the court Wednesday Hall did not commit a felony when she left with Pitonyak for Mexico. The judge rejected three motions to throw out the indictment.
KVUE Online Video
KVUE's Rudy Koski reports
He is, however, considering another.
In the meantime, Hall's bond was reduced from $175,000 to $75,000.
Jennifer Rae Cave, 21, a former Corpus Christi resident, moved to Austin shortly after graduating from King High School
world wide web press
PRINT THIS STORY | E-MAIL THIS STORY
King grad killed in Austin
Police get warrant for murder
By Icess Fernandez Caller-Times
August 20, 2005
Jennifer Rae Cave, 21, a former Corpus Christi resident, was found dead Thursday night in an Austin apartment complex, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
Cave, who moved to Austin shortly after graduating from King High School, was reported missing Wednesday night or Thursday after she did not report to work Wednesday, said family friend Sid Smith.
Cave was to start work as a secretary at an Austin law firm Wednesday, Smith said.
Her body was found at the Orange Tree Condominiums at 2529 Rio Grande St., the American-Statesman reported.
The Austin Police Department obtained a warrant for Colton Aaron Pitonyak, 22, on a first-degree murder charge. Police still are looking for Pitonyak, a member of Delta Tau Delta fraternity, and a student at the University of Texas at Austin. Police officials were unavailable Saturday.
Smith remembers Cave as an energetic and smart person.
"She was a wonderful person," he said. "A bright kid, outgoing and a good student."
Smith said the family hasn't made funeral arrangements yet. Cave's mother, Sharon, a former Caller-Times employee, was in Austin on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
"I'm hoping that after a little time, and I know things will never be the same, they will be able to move on," Smith said.
Contact Icess Fernandez
at 886-3748
or fernandezi@caller.com fernandezi@caller.com
PRINT THIS STORY | E-MAIL THIS STORY
King grad killed in Austin
Police get warrant for murder
By Icess Fernandez Caller-Times
August 20, 2005
Jennifer Rae Cave, 21, a former Corpus Christi resident, was found dead Thursday night in an Austin apartment complex, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
Cave, who moved to Austin shortly after graduating from King High School, was reported missing Wednesday night or Thursday after she did not report to work Wednesday, said family friend Sid Smith.
Cave was to start work as a secretary at an Austin law firm Wednesday, Smith said.
Her body was found at the Orange Tree Condominiums at 2529 Rio Grande St., the American-Statesman reported.
The Austin Police Department obtained a warrant for Colton Aaron Pitonyak, 22, on a first-degree murder charge. Police still are looking for Pitonyak, a member of Delta Tau Delta fraternity, and a student at the University of Texas at Austin. Police officials were unavailable Saturday.
Smith remembers Cave as an energetic and smart person.
"She was a wonderful person," he said. "A bright kid, outgoing and a good student."
Smith said the family hasn't made funeral arrangements yet. Cave's mother, Sharon, a former Caller-Times employee, was in Austin on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
"I'm hoping that after a little time, and I know things will never be the same, they will be able to move on," Smith said.
Contact Icess Fernandez
at 886-3748
or fernandezi@caller.com fernandezi@caller.com
Cave, a Corpus Christi native, told her mother on Aug. 16, 2005,
world wide web press
Trial For UT Student Accused Of Murdering Woman To Start
POSTED: 9:21 am CST January 22, 2007
UPDATED: 10:01 am CST January 22, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
AUSTIN, Texas -- The judge presiding over the case of a University of Texas student accused of killing and mutilating a 21-year-old woman summoned a surplus of potential jurors to help offset pretrial publicity.
Colton Pitonyak is accused of killing Jennifer Cave in August 2005, leaving her partially dismembered body in his campus-area apartment and then fleeing to Mexico.
State District Judge Wilford Flowers summoned 88 potential jurors, about 30 more than usual, for Monday's jury selection out of concern that some in the jury pool would already have opinions about the case.
<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/34ea/3/0/%2a/w%3B64665039%3B1-0%3B0%3B15251896%3B4307-300/250%3B19778618/19796512/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/84/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D67046661%3B0-0%3B0%3B12654554%3B4307-300/250%3B19585340/19603234/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/2/84/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://home.ingdirect.com/promo/promo_set.asp?p=%9Bebnzy%BC&Redirect=56"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/807724/money_in_the_bank_OSA_300x250_no_rate.gif" BORDER=0></A>
Pitonyak, a Little Rock, Ark., native who was studying finance, could face life in prison if convicted. Defense lawyer Sam Bassett said the 24-year-old has declared his innocence.
Cave, a Corpus Christi native, told her mother on Aug. 16, 2005, that she'd gotten a new job as a legal secretary and was going to dinner that night with a man named Colton, according to Pitonyak's arrest warrant affidavit. The law firm called her mother the next day and said Cave hadn't shown up for work.
Cave's mother, Sharon Cave, filed a missing person report after her daughter's roommate said she'd never come home from her outing with Pitonyak, the affidavit says. A friend of Jennifer Cave's told police she called him early in the morning of Aug. 17 and said Pitonyak was upset about losing his cell phone and she was going to help him find it. No one heard from her again.
Police found Cave's car parked at Pitonyak's complex, but no one answered the door at his apartment.
After police said they couldn't break down the door, Sharon Cave's boyfriend entered the apartment through a window and found her body in the bathtub, the affidavit said.
An autopsy determined that Cave died from a gunshot to the right arm and torso and was shot in the head after her death. Her head and hands were severed. She had methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol in her body when she died, the report said.
Pitonyak was arrested near the U.S.-Mexico border five days after Cave's body was found. He had fled to Piedras Negras, Mexico, with a female acquaintance.
Sharon Cave said her daughter was a loving girl and possibly was "unable to understand that someone would ever harm her."
"We just are very hopeful that the justice system will play out like it should," Sharon Cave said.
Opening statements in the case are expected Tuesday morning.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Trial For UT Student Accused Of Murdering Woman To Start
POSTED: 9:21 am CST January 22, 2007
UPDATED: 10:01 am CST January 22, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
AUSTIN, Texas -- The judge presiding over the case of a University of Texas student accused of killing and mutilating a 21-year-old woman summoned a surplus of potential jurors to help offset pretrial publicity.
Colton Pitonyak is accused of killing Jennifer Cave in August 2005, leaving her partially dismembered body in his campus-area apartment and then fleeing to Mexico.
State District Judge Wilford Flowers summoned 88 potential jurors, about 30 more than usual, for Monday's jury selection out of concern that some in the jury pool would already have opinions about the case.
<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/34ea/3/0/%2a/w%3B64665039%3B1-0%3B0%3B15251896%3B4307-300/250%3B19778618/19796512/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/84/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D67046661%3B0-0%3B0%3B12654554%3B4307-300/250%3B19585340/19603234/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/2/84/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://home.ingdirect.com/promo/promo_set.asp?p=%9Bebnzy%BC&Redirect=56"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/807724/money_in_the_bank_OSA_300x250_no_rate.gif" BORDER=0></A>
Pitonyak, a Little Rock, Ark., native who was studying finance, could face life in prison if convicted. Defense lawyer Sam Bassett said the 24-year-old has declared his innocence.
Cave, a Corpus Christi native, told her mother on Aug. 16, 2005, that she'd gotten a new job as a legal secretary and was going to dinner that night with a man named Colton, according to Pitonyak's arrest warrant affidavit. The law firm called her mother the next day and said Cave hadn't shown up for work.
Cave's mother, Sharon Cave, filed a missing person report after her daughter's roommate said she'd never come home from her outing with Pitonyak, the affidavit says. A friend of Jennifer Cave's told police she called him early in the morning of Aug. 17 and said Pitonyak was upset about losing his cell phone and she was going to help him find it. No one heard from her again.
Police found Cave's car parked at Pitonyak's complex, but no one answered the door at his apartment.
After police said they couldn't break down the door, Sharon Cave's boyfriend entered the apartment through a window and found her body in the bathtub, the affidavit said.
An autopsy determined that Cave died from a gunshot to the right arm and torso and was shot in the head after her death. Her head and hands were severed. She had methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol in her body when she died, the report said.
Pitonyak was arrested near the U.S.-Mexico border five days after Cave's body was found. He had fled to Piedras Negras, Mexico, with a female acquaintance.
Sharon Cave said her daughter was a loving girl and possibly was "unable to understand that someone would ever harm her."
"We just are very hopeful that the justice system will play out like it should," Sharon Cave said.
Opening statements in the case are expected Tuesday morning.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Dear Public Email Account Holders: Control of information is critical to the abuse of power.
| From: Jaime Kenedeno |
To: ctines@delmar.edu, sjohnson@delmar.edu, sfoy@nueces.esc2.net
Cc: ariverajr@swbell.net, mikewest@delmar.edu
Date: Sep 14, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: Dear Public Email Account Holders
The esc2.net and the delmar.edu email accounts are paid for by the Taxpayers of Nueces County and DMC taxing districts. Kenedeno & Associates will not be intimidated by bullies and egotistical power mongers. The emails will continue. It is our right to petition these email addresses as we are not advertising products nor are we seeking monetary benefit from the email engagement. We are informing and engaging the individuals who work for the government entities where we will affect change. If you don't appreciate our informative emails, simply delete without reading. That is WATT most people who dont have an adversarial relationship with the sender will do. If you dont like a radio show or TV show you change the channel. So be it, delete the email if you choose. I urge all of you guys who object; by all means, file a formal complaint. That is all DMC needs is more litigation. Please forward the emails to Mr Westergren and Augie Rivera. Keep in mind these email accounts are not YOUR personal accounts.
<<<<<>>>>>
FYI
When I first came under attack at Del Mar College back in 1999 I think. The plan was to replace me by hiring a Coordinator of Performing Arts Activity under the Music Department. Minutes after the job description was posted in the Music building custodians who I counted as my friends brought me word or a copy. This new position"s job description was basically my job description minus the technical and labor aspects. Experience could be that the applicant was a musician with a BS or masters. Experience running an auditorium was not required. I later learned that the plan was that I would be directed to teach this individual my job to be my boss. Email was relatively new and I was the first employee on campus to see the potential and use the email to inform others of what was going on. This caused quite a stir because it turned out that their were procedures and hoops department chairs had to go through to get funding for new positions etc. Those procedures were not followed in my case. By getting out the information and than requesting documents under FOI, I embarrassed the than Dicianna/Armenta administration into backing down. As a result of my emails which pointed out the Music Departments Chair involvement, the Music Chair who is no longer at Del Mar wrote a secret email that I acquired under FOI that he and Linda Ard (early childhood center) and Music department employees were afraid that I was going to go postal. I informed Dr. Dicianna that I was aware of this email and questioned why if he had been informed of an employee's potential to go postal I wasn't offered counseling and no investigation appeared to have taken place. I stated that I had been wronged. Dicianna wrote me back that if I thought I had been wronged I should file a grievance. That is when I began filing grievance's and reporting the safety issues to the state to acquire whistleblower protection. It bought me four or five more years of employment. They never pointed to my emails as a reason for not renewing my contract although I have no doubt it played a major role.
I did get a lot of flack from a handful of faculty asking me to eliminate than from my emails. I didn't want to get trapped into accusations that I violated some DMC Policy concerning the email system. I made several inquires to the IT department asking them if I could edit my DMCALL. It took a long long time to get an answer and that answer was no. So I used DMCALL to ask the IT department to give employees a Bulleting Board (today a Blog) so that employees could discuss internal issues or anything else that caught our attention. I never received the courtesy of a reply and of course they never set up a Bulletin Board because the control of information is critical to the abuse of power.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Socialismo John Kelley Unveilled as South Texas Watches
Monday, September 11, 2006
Kelley needs to distance himself from the Candidates and the Democratic Party.
I challenge Abel Cavada to prove he is not a Communist!!!
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 01:06:05 AM by Pete Trev
I challenge Abel Cavada, Chair of Progressive Populist, to prove his not Communist?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 03:54:28 PM by Pete Trev
I can prove he is... I call on him right now to prove his not affiliated with a radical Communist-oriented group that is calling for downfall of our U.S. Society.
I challenge him in front of all the good Democrats of Nueces County and the State of Texas and the U.S.
If is he, how dare he infilitrate our party with lies and deception and ruse. I want him to prove that he has not demaged the reputation my grand and my family have fought so hard to protect and to maintain its integrity.
Cavada what now?
Just list of 25 Progressives submitted to Socialist Party for consideration: who are they?
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 01:56:22 AM by Concerned Democrat
I want a progressive populist but not anymore. I know now the lies and deception that was going on. Kelly, Les, and especially Abel Cavada, our chairman, lied to us.
We have families and children; how dare they stain our reputations that way. My husband and I have worked so hard for what we have.
I don't want to be considered to be a member of the Socialist Party USA. How dare they add my name. Please remove it anyone. I have been crying all day, for the stupidity I had to fall for.
Do you know if the list is going to be published anytime soon?
List of 25 Progressives submitted to Socialist Party for possible membership?
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 02:01:21 AM by Karol
Why would our names be submitted to such a subversive organiztion without our knowledge and consent. Abel Cavada and John Kelley are evil, pure unadulturated evil. I suspect they were the ones either directly or indirectly responsible. I could be wrong, but I dout it.
I hear the list is going to be printed this coming week
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 02:05:48 AM by Polisurf
Many of the people in the list, all members of the CC Progressive Populist Group (led by Chair Abel Cavada) will mentioned. They are labeled, I hear, as "prospective members to consider for membership in the Socialist Party USA."
I wonder if Susie Luna's name is on it.
Leave Kelley alone: he admited he attended the Socialist USA convention & Abel
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 02:11:16 AM by Rol
Kelley said for mutual benefits. He fingered Abel Cavada as being there even though the minutes did not reflect it. Does he want to bring he don't with him - don't know.
If you decide to contue as a member of the CC Prgrogressive Populists Caucus. It is your choice and no one elses. We are mature people and there are consequences to all of our decisions.
Kelley needs to distance himself from the Candidates and the Democratic Party.
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 02:15:58 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
No Quarter my friend.
It's time John... It's Not About PartiesThis Post was deleted
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:26:51 PM by Emma Gonzalez
Comrade,
If I as a woman was able to come all the way from Brownsville to Corpus Christi and sign my name and participate, why can't you. So what I was there at the Socialist Party of Texas Convention.
You have written for our publication and have been received as a camarada. Do you not have the cajones to say the truth Camarada?
We considered you as a candidate, as a camarada, in the inner circle of our movement. I will not deny who I am even if it is my last breath.
It is not about parties. It's time.
If I can put my name and reputation on the line, why can't you John?
If I can put my name and reputation on the line, why can't you John?This post was deleted
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:30:58 PM by Emma Gonzalez
All you have to do is believe our cause, and just do it. Don't shame in front of family comrade.
No coercive threats are encourage
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 01:12:08 AM by Defenzor Webmaster
people can do as they please as long as they abide by the rules.
See there John Kelley......
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:59:14 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Now, that is WATT I call being forthright.
Touche' Emma
Johnnie its time to face the music
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:59:03 PM by Karol
sissy.
If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:45:24 AM by Emma
"If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.” -- these words can only be given meaning by you. Les Cassidy would utter them in a second without hesitation. Will you go down in our movement as the opposite of Che?
So much for our revolution
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:47:21 AM by Emma
How can I continue.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Why was CCPPC affiliated with the Socialist Party USA, the most radical of socialists that we know
Where is Abel Cavada, the coward... who made me join the Progressive Populists?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:42:53 PM by Karol
I, an ex Progressive Populist Member, want some answers from Abel Cavada, its chairman. He told me it was nothing radical and he was as mainstream as anyone can be. Why was he affiliated with the Socialist Party USA, the most radical of socialists that we know.
Les Cassidy, a local member of the Populists here is a state executive member of the Socialist Party of Texas. He sits in a committee in the CCPPC and has explained the group’s rationale and support for Ortiz Jr. as a Democratic candidate for State Representative. Cassidy wrote on the South Texas Chisme Blog: “As for Mr. Ortiz, when he was County Chair, he was receptive to the formation of the PPC (Progressive Populist Caucus) within the party. He was aware that the PPC was opposed to his father's prior support for the war in Iraq and the Bankruptcy reform bill, but as the County Chair he was more concerned with building and expanding the party than in seeking allegiance to his father's political career.” (Note: visit stxc.blogspot.com).
Currently the Corpus Christi Progressive Populist Caucus (CCPPC) and its the main steering committee is headed by a local attorney Abel Cavada who has history of being involved in socialist causes and writing many a exulting article on such deep-seated socialists/communists “heros” as the late Emma Tenayuka (the former Chairman of the American Communist Party of Texas); recently he wrote one defining Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, a man who models himself after Cuba’s Comandante Fidel Castro, as “a true progressive populist” (visit www.larazaunida.com and click on the link entitled Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution). In this article, Cavada talks about his fascination with the Venezuelan “circles” (or Russian Marxist-like “soviets”).
Additionally, below please find a letter of intent submitted by Abel and Joy Cavada in joining the Socialist Party USA:
“We are from Corpus Christi and travel to the valley weekly on business. Abel, is an attorney and I do all the rest, I am sure you know what that means… Abel, my husband was involved in La Raza Unida in his younger years. We are seeking to be involved again. We tried a group here in Corpus Christi, but they seem stuck in the Democratic box. We are wondering about your group. We are also, interested in the rumor of you running for Congress.”
For: Steve Rossignol; Sun Oct 16 11:21:55 EST 2005
Below please find an official email response by a State Member of the Sociailist Party USA – Eric Carlos Toren:
"Hola Joy and Abel:
Great to hear of your interest in knowing more about the SP (Socialist Party of) Texas and of our still proposed campaign for Dist. 27th by our compañero Raul Cano. Regarding the Socialist Party of Texas (SPTX), SPTX is a state affiliate of the Socialista Party USA (www.sp-usa.org). As part of the SP USA, we, SPTX, ’strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.’ You can get more on our party at: http://sp-usa.org/principles.html
http://www.sp-usa.org/joinus/memberform.html
As far as District 27th run against Solomon Ortiz, there are still many factors that we have too look into before a major electoral campaign is started. As you, compañeros, are aware from your work in LRUP, there is ground work to be done. Right now, we looking into the process of filing, time frame, etc. We also need to build up our volunteer base and funding. Our party will need assistance in electoral legal matters, fundraising, flyering, poll watching, and starting to get the contacts needs for public presentations and evens at the key cities in Dist. 27th… If you are interested in joining the party or at least being part of helping out with our electoral work, please, feel free to contact me via email at ectoren at sbcglobal.net.
in solidarity,
Erik Carlos Torén, State Secretary
Socialist Party of Texas
sptexas at sp-usa.org
(956) XXX-XXXX- cell …”
Where is Joy Miller Cavada the new Emma Tenayuka...
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:56:41 PM by Karol
Joy M. Cavada you are so fake. Maybe you need to give your hubby a bottle of viagra.
He will feel better if he steps up to the plate; out of the hole of abulia and into the light of truth. One cannot serve two masters. Reminds him of the words of Emiliano Zapada: "I would rather die on my feet than remain in my knees." He cited that once.
She feels constrained by the "democratic box"
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 01:40:41 AM by Karol
She needs something more radically exicting?
She could try something new: staple her tongue. hehehe
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 01:43:09 AM by Just The Facts
She's a public figure now, with the IQ of a marijuana plant.
Re(1): Where is Abel
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:50:35 PM by john kelley
Someone MADE you join the PPC, did they hod you down and move your hand, did they hold you prisoner til you joined? Have you even read the PPC website local and state to see what it is we stand for. It also does not say that they ever joined, does it, Hmm, i must have missed that.
You sound as if ......
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:06:48 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
you are missing the point.
Maybe you can sell ice to eskimos John
And maybe you sold Socialism to Democrats in South Texas.
But now the consumers want a refund.
Give em their......
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:08:46 AM by Jaime & dannoynted1
minds back John!
Even if it is a "mind at a time".
K.I.S.S. Texas: Socialism entered South Texas by way of deception.
K.I.S.S. Texas
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:39:32 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Keep It Simple South Texas
Socialismo?
How has Socialism been introduced and sold to South Texas?
Under the Guise of John Kelley being a "Good Democrat".
SPTX used Prevarication and deception so as to back door South Texas.
We dont need to define Socialism any further; it has been represented and sold in a deceptive manner. Is that not enough to reveal it's nature?
You hit the nail in the head, Jaime, right on nonsocialist friend
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:56:48 PM by JVC
To the point.
Socialismos, “we are going to use our Incumbent resources to discourage (SQUEEZE) Defenzor clients
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:46:54 PM by HIMC
Monday, October 10, 2005 9:54:00 PM
Shamsie “Strong Arms” Solomon Ortiz & Rene Rodriguez
Democrats are not behind Shamsie! There is only certain clique of Democrats who want to “Strong Arm” Shamsie back into the Nueces Constitutional County Court! This “clique” (or group of “Cronies”) I will refer to as the “Shamsie Clique” or “Shamsie Cronies”. It is my understanding, Shamsie’s support stems from the Office of Congressman Solomon Ortiz and certain other witnesses to the “Capelo Deal”. Attorney Shamsie (along with George Finley {Nueces County Hospital District}) witnessed the transaction between Attorney & State Representative Jaime Capelo and Attorney Rene Rodriguez.. Capelo represented Citgo at the time and Rodriguez was in dispute with Corpus Christi Police Officers Association! (Laredo National Bank VP) Roland Guerra had to break the bad news to Capelo and then he was thrown to the dogs! Why was Shamsie never deposed? Why not Finley (deposed)? Tony “The Two Fer” was mad at Rodriguez and Capelo! What about Hugo Berlanga grooming Capelo for the JOB? I seem to remember some kind of criminal charges filed on Hugo Berlanga and his backroom politics! Now Capelo and Berlanga are both better off! They are both successful lobbyists in Austin! Then we go to the Medical Legislation! Who was it good for? Was “The Two Fer” Pro or Con with the proposition authored by Joe Nixon? The Doctor’s Malpractice insurance increased! Who made out on this deal?
Now back to the “Shamsie Cronies” it is rumored and warnings have been issued! The media is being “Strong Armed” financially! Elite and Power Brokers (Powercrats) within the Democratic Party are frowning on the media who promote any other option for the Democratic primary and certainly to support an independent will bring the wrath of both Parties! They are in essence saying, “we are going to use our Incumbent resources to discourage (SQUEEZE) clients from working with your business’ if you (the Media) speak negatively of Shamsie! Even if it is truth you are speaking! Simple, Powercrats are making threats behind the scenes; so as to affect the balance! Rodriguez’ wife sits on the 13th COA and this has nothing to do with her as I can see! I venture to say that the “Republicans for Lord Neal” are working the slate the same underhanded way of “Strong Arming”. All I can say is the recorded messages do not lie! Maybe Solomon is unaware of the tactics but he needs to be aware of these things! The only remedy is to support the Media YOU threatened to shun, blackball, squeeze and hurt (financially)! I bet you will want “equal time”? They expected this to hush the media but not this time!
Re(1): You hit the nail in the head, Jaime, right on nonsocialist friend
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:07:26 PM by john kelley
Besides if you defined socialism by its attributes you would disprove yourself or maybe you just dont know what it is.
Socialism entered South Texas by way of deception.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:11:17 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
That is the only definition we need.
You are untrue Mr Kelley.
Re(1): Socialism entered South Texas by way of deception.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:13:30 PM by john kelley
I never hid the fact that i met with the socialists, and i have never tried to introduce their platform into the democratic party please prove so if you can other wise you are just running your mouth again
Re(2): Socialism entered South Texas by way of deception.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:19:14 PM by Just The Facts
A traitor might betray his country for money, for love, for fame, certainly for ideological reasons. Second, a traitor such as you John Kelley should consider choosing to change geographical location in harmony with his ideals – China, Cuba, Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela. If I had any power, I would exile you traitor.
Today we hear the Communist battle cry: "Oh, liberate the poor Hispanics from the barrios from capitalism." We recognize that Communism does not agree with our historical understanding that God is the center of history, is the creator of certain churches, and the push for the liberation of those oppressed.
Communism is based on the materialist conception of the world and world liberation. It rejects God and it rejects Tejanismo and Chicanismo and all that is ours. It calls religion "the opiate of the masses," and is devoted to stamping out religion. On Carranza show Abel Cavada, the president of the Progressive Populist told Carrazan: “Those who use religion in a radio program, are panderings to the Republican Right.” The remark of course was directed at Carranza.
In theory also, it contradicts its own claim of liberation. It is undoubtedly a liberation scheme against God and, as the flag bearer of the devil, challenges the flag bearer of God's own church. This is the conclusion we can draw on Communism.
What is Communism? It is the religion of the devil, taking on the form of a real religion to those who are gullible. I see Communism as a theoretical instrument of the devil, called materialism. Why? Because it is evil.
Why do you try to skirt the fact that you never intended for South Texas to learn of these facts?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:17:53 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Of course the answer you supply is a year late and everybody knows you are a Trojan Horse.
Re(1): Why do you try
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:26:57 PM by john kelley
I have yet to see one proof or one fact on this board from any of the critics. I never hid it nor do i deny that i went to the meeting when it came up. so what exactly is your major dysfunction?
Seems to me this information is new to all of us
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:45:16 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Some remain in the River (D Nile) and some of us feel very betrayed.
South Texas is in shock.
The Socialist Party infilterated the Nueces Democratic Party and you are part of the infilteration. Who just comes into South Texas and gets a radio station and a newspaper.
There is a Socialismo bankroll behind you Kelley.
And now to act as if there is no dinero and funding is solicited from the "Good Dems" who have put their faith and believed in you. All this was done through deception and prevarication.
Below is the proof u met with traitor of this nation. You are not a Democrat; you are lying demon.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:32:59 PM by Karol
http://sp-usa.org/platform/
Socialist Party USA 339 Lafayette St. #303 New York, NY 10012
2006-07 Platform
-
The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation, whether based on social class, gender, race/ethnicity, age, education, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.
We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society based on compassion, empathy, and respect as well as the development of new social structures. Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services.
For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs.
As we pursue a socialist transformation of society, we join with others in making radical demands on the existing system: demands that challenge the basic assumptions of a capitalist market economy while pointing the way to a new society. Although reforms will not in themselves bring about socialism, the fight for them will advance the cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system. As we build the socialist movement, we organize around a platform committed to our common and interdependent struggles and aspirations.
================================================
Socialist Party Platform: Economics
The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism
Re(1): Below is the proof
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:43:13 PM by john kelley
As i have said, i am not nor have i ever been a member of the socialist party. I do believe in a mixed economy, you can read about my beliefs at stx chisme or in my article in we the people news, if you really care about what i believe. just exactly what do you find so wrong with what is said above, "the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation" "a democratic socialist society based on compassion, empathy, and respect" "Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services." "social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs." I'm confused, can you tell my how well capitalism is working for you? Pure capitalism is the domination of those with capital of those without it. If you have that much money you should be a republican. Pure capitalism does away with social security, medicare, public roads, schools, utilities, community services etc. those are socialist, and are supported by the democratic party last i looked at the platform. do you not support those things???
K.I.S.S. Texas: Who believes WATT you say anymore John Kelley
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:51:57 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Who cares about the definitions being thrown around.
The one thing on which we must remain focused on is, the wolf came to South Texas in Sheep's clothing.
South Texas does not take kindly to being played. I feel most betrayed and to watch you attempt (and I do use the word attempt) to split hairs.
You came in as a "Good Democrat" and this sir you are not.
John, What a brilliant defense of the agenda of Socialist Party USA
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:03:04 PM by JVC
If your heart is with them, be a man and say it. The deception has gone on long enough.
Say it if you truly believe. A true statement will set you free, and who knows you might even earn my respect... I will wait 30 minutes more before bed time.
Dont hold your breath.....
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:40:12 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
The USSR never admitted it.
To admit it is to sink swiftly instead of slowly.
John Kelley's written words reveal everything he stands for.....
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:55:01 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
He has already said it and then backs away and then his passion cannot control himself anymore and he demostrates where his heart truly does reside.
One thing is for sure, his heart is not with South Texas.
Socialism in South Texas is defined by Trojan Horse Tactics
I challenge Abel Cavada, Chair of Progressive Populist, to prove his not Communist?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 03:54:28 PM by Pete Trev
I can prove he is... I call on him right now to prove his not affiliated with a radical Communist-oriented group that is calling for downfall of our U.S. Society.
I challenge him in front of all the good Democrats of Nueces County and the State of Texas and the U.S.
If is he, how dare he infilitrate our party with lies and deception and ruse. I want him to prove that he has not demaged the reputation my grand and my family have fought so hard to protect and to maintain its integrity.
Cavada what now?
Re(1): I challenge Abel Cavada, Chair of Progressive Populist, to prove his not Communist?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:02:14 PM by John Kelley
So you can prove he is a member of the communist party? lets see it.
So now u tell us JOHN u met with TRAITORS to our country
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:01:59 PM by Karol
So u admit John u sad there with traitor to our country & planned with them? How dare you deceive us.
How can you possibly be a Democrat if you met with traitor to our country in a State Socialist Convention to work with them on goals that you consider of mutual interest.
Don't you understand they have a platform that calls for the downfall of Democracy; and to replace it with demonic socialism.
Re(1): So now u tell us JOHN u met with TRAITORS to our country
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:12:00 PM by john kelley
You obviously haven't read their platform as it does not call for the destruction of our country but to reestablish it on a more democratic and less elitist basis. They believe in working within the democratic system, something that seems foreign to those who would rather try and smear people. The republicans meet and work with the libertarians, the democrats have many different branches, the socialists have much in common with their platform and the democratic platform. you need to widen the base, i case you havent noticed the republicans have been winning, many of you would welcome republicans into the democratic party, HMM does that mean you are a republican?
Socialismo Defender John Kelley....
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:26:10 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
and you are not a member am I correct John?
Re(1): Socialismo Defender John Kelley....
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:28:13 PM by john Kelley
I am not nor have I ever been. Once again you are incorrect.
South Texas is my witness John Kelley
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 11:38:43 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Let the people decide.
You are riding coat tails Comrade Kelley.
I will refrain from including the names of these Politicos you have brainwashed. You are dragging the Candidates down.
Will they distance themselves or sink with you?
If Abel Cavada has any honor left, left him respond not hide behind lies
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:19:45 PM by EX CCPPC
He should have some honor. Say the truth.
Re(1): If Abel Cavada has any honor left, left him respond not hide behind lies
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:30:39 PM by john kelley
if you trully are a ccppc member you know how to get ahold of me and find out the truth otherwise you are just another opportunista running a scam. Of course we did ban a couple of tejanos who wanted to gather info for the own group and never contributed one thing tothe few meetings they attended. they came seeking support for danny jr. for sdec which we did, but after the convention never showed again.
Socialist Party USA Platform- traitor John Kelley defends it,
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:29:48 PM by Just The Facts
http://sp-usa.org/platform/
Socialist Party USA 339 Lafayette St. #303 New York, NY 10012
2006-07 Platform
-
The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation.
We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society based on empathy as well as the development of new social structures. Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services.
For these reasons we call for social ownership and control of productive resources.
As we pursue a socialist transformation of society, we join with others in making radical demands on the existing system: demands that challenge the basic assumptions of a capitalist market economy while pointing the way to a new society. Although reforms will not in themselves bring about socialism, the fight for them will advance the cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system. As we build the socialist movement, we organize around a platform committed to our common and interdependent struggles and aspirations.
====================
Socialist Party Platform: Economics
The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. Only a global transformation from capitalism to socialism will work.
Re(1): Socialist Party USA Platform- traitor John Kelley defends it,
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:45:41 PM by john kelley
so you have proved what the socialist party says, you still haven't proved that i am a socialist
John Kelley writes for Socialist Publications, attends and host SPTX Conventions but technically....
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:12:48 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
he wants to split hairs and claim he is not a Socialist. We know John Kelley is not a Democrat. He is definitely a DINO.
Anyway as far as your technical defenses, we will let the People of South Texas make an informed decision.
Q: "Who wanted to gather info for their own group" A: (Trojan Horse) John Kelley & Abel Cavada
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:03:52 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Now, Socialismos control the Nueces Democratic Party.
My name better not appear as a socialist John
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:10:20 PM by Ex Progressive Populist member
I hereby resign from the Corpus Christi Progressive Populist Caucus... I want my name (and I am a Woman)... My name better not appear on the 25 member list submitted to the Socialist Party USA.
I do not want my name and family to be labeled for the rest of our days. I am not a member of any socialist or communist party or radical group.
I will hold you responsible Solomon Ortiz Jr. and Sr., Abel Cavada and the gang. You all should just admit the truth. Minutes of the Socialist Party USA and TExas have been put out. Everyone knows, stop playing word games John Kelley, Abel Cavada, give us our lives and our party back. Have some honor Solomon Jr. also.
Re(1): My name better not appear as a socialist John
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:26:56 PM by john kelley
i know of no list submitted to the socialist party from PPC, that would be against our rules, if you have proof submit it otherwise it is a lie. If you read the emails you will see that I attended as an observer to talk mutual strategy and interests not as a member. it is interesting that the emails jaime is using as proof is one that he posted to this guys site or the guy picked up from a jaime posting and happened over a year ago and he has proved no association or even discussions since. By the way it is not against the law to be a socialist. If you really are a member of the PPC you know how to get ahold of me by email or phone and can discuss your concerns other wise you are just another disgruntled ... supporter running a scam.
By Association with Les Cassidy is confirmation John Kelley not to mention.....
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:51:31 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
your rhetoric.
You and the SPTX are conjoined.
Even many of the CCPPC have admitted this and in return ask me WATT is so wrong with Social Justice.
JUSTICE does not begin with lies and deception.
Maybe JUSTUS does but not JUSTICE.
Re(1): By Association with Les Cassidy is confirmation John Kelley not to mention.....
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:01:14 PM by john kelley
no one ever informed me that i had to report my activities and discussions to you or anyone, else. sounds kinda stalinistic to me.
I am sure the "Good Democrats" who ARE loyal to South Texas......
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:09:27 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
would have booted you out way long ago had you divulged these activities and discussions.
It is always good to be truthful from the beginning else all is "fruit of a poison tree".
Comrade Kelley, you entered as a Trojan Horse.
Re(1): I am sure the
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:15:30 PM by john kelley
thats funny coming from someone who doesnt even use his own name.
Neither did Samuel Clemens use his own name
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:22:22 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
It is a Pen Name Mr Kelley.
Everybody knows who I am.
Jaime Kenedeno is prevalent throughout the World Wide Web. Good positive exposure and the Pen of War (Plume De La Guerra) given to me by one of your own Joe Flores.
Get out of that River People.
Re(1): Neither did Samuel Clemens use his own name
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:29:39 PM by John Kelley
YOu are correct, everyone knows who you are.
Then by this premise.....
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:24:34 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
They know I am from here and you are not.
They know to support me or stay the heck of my way.
We know,
"We're from here"
The former statement by John Kelley, "thats funny coming from someone who doesnt even use his own name" once again demonstrates Comrade Kelley's disingenuousness.
Don't even make these veilled threats. If you are gonna make a move then make it. The Great State of Texas is watching.
If it was not a threat then my sincere apologies sir.
John Kelley, why did you not inform us of the Socialismo mingling a year ago if it is so innocent?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:54:07 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Do you think the duped Dems would have still supported the CCPPC?
Truth called trash?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:15:04 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
When one speaks truth is that called trash.
Am I Lying?
Was I lying?
One must remember, I was obtuse to Homero because I thought it was only money. Homero had referred to some websites on the show (El Defenzor Live) but I was too dammned pissed to listen. Ask Solly. I suggested Solly run as a Democrat and drop the Progressive label. Ask him. Then Homero and I would not speak about it so I began to do a little research on Mr Cassidy. Then that is where I found Mr Kelley; smack in the middle of the Socialist Party of Texas. John Kelley was right there in the middle and was the subject of A Socialist overthrow of Solomon Ortiz in Congressional District #27. The thread was titled "Three socialist candidates for District 27: Raul Cano, (Les Cassidy or John Kelley) and Carlos Morin?" Now, have you read this conversation? Go read in there a little while and come back and tell me John Kelley is a good guy. He wanted to undermine and use us. He was already doing it. He lead us to believe he was a Democrat but he is an Operative of the Socialist Party.
The above post was not posted by me the writing inside is mine but I did not post it above.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:46:56 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Socialism in South Texas is defined by these type of Trojan Horse Tactics.
How can one possibly be a Democrat if one meets with traitors to our country in a State Socialist Conventionin Corpus Christi, Texas
Did you know?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 02:13:35 PM by Not for SALE
Did you know that the PPC (Progressive Populace Caucus) is a official state group that is recognized by the State Tx Democratic Party?
The CCPPC is the corpus chapter of the state group (led by Abel Cavada?)
... the alarm for when the local Tx democratic women started? They also are officially affiliated with the state party ... stonewall democrats, Black democratic caucus, MADD, Tejanos and so on.
Instead of attacking the democrats like Ortiz (jr) and Air America, you should attack the real evil!
The REPUBLICAN PARTY! What have they done? And what do you do?
Communists are not Democrats... Unless u are missing a few screws ..
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:44:27 PM by JVC
As for republicans and Democrats, they are not calling like the group that Abel Cavada, and John Kelley and Les Cassidy are affiliated with -- calling for a "reconstruction" of U.S. Society---from Democracy/Free Enterprise to dictatorial "socialism".
I have always been a Democrat and I nor none of my friends and family and neighbors are communists, nor seditious and traitor to this country, beautiful country of the U.S.A.
Re(1): Did you know?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:08:18 PM by dannoynted1
prove it!
Re(1): Did you know?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 06:02:06 PM by yep
I agree with what you said.
What have the R's done for us? nothing I tell you.
attack them not the Democrats.
If John is a Commie so be it. Do you think that people would really turn to communism?
Yep that it alright.
Glad u admit John is a Commie, but not Democrat
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:50:36 PM by Just The Facts
This is the issue. Deception. Their aims are not the aims of the Democratic Party. They want to establish connections with Cuba, China, Sinapore, and other communist countries so that the international revolution can be realized.
But wait, Didn't Solly Jr. admit he travel to, yeahhhhhh, Cuba, China, Singapore. Ummmmm. What a coincidence.
The punk betrayed our party. Out, and his dad, out. There is the word that applies. OUT.
Re(2): Did you know?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:09:06 PM by dannoynted1
watt have you done for anyone?
Re(3): Did you know?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:17:31 PM by john kelley
I am not nor have I ever been "affiliated" with the socialist party, I am a member of the Texas Democratic Women, it would be a great surprise to my wife to find out that might make me a woman. either in ignorance or disingenousness you are misleading people about "reconstruction" the socialist party are pacifists, which I am not, and when they are talking about reconstruction of society they are referring to using the legal electoral means of democratizing a political and economic system that has been taken over by economic and political elites. there is not such thing as dictatorial socialism, it is an oxymoron.
I think the Republican Party under Nixon established relations with china and they were expanded under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and especially Bush 2 who has sold our jobs and given our capital to them, they now own a good portion of our debt and they represent anything but socialism, they dont even resemble communism, even though they call themselves that. cuba would have been liberalized long ago if it hadnt been for the republicans wanting to insure the anti castro vote in florida to continue to keep jeb in power. that too is fading now that they discovered oil off their coasts. I donot admire castro but do understand him when you look at the batista dictatorship propped up by the usa. They do by the way have a lower infant mortality rate than we do. And by the way Singapore is a democratic republic.
Singapore is more significant than you can imagine.
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:15:47 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
I am waiting on the Documentation however, I am sure Solomon Grande knows where this is going.
So u admit John u sad there with traitor to our country & planned with them? How dare you deceive us
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 09:00:49 PM by Karol R.
So u admit John u sat there with traitor to our country & planned with them? How dare you deceive us.
How can you possibly be a Democrat if you met with traitor to our country in a State Socialist Convention to work with them on goals that you consider of mutual interest.
Don't you understand they have a platform that calls for the downfall of Democracy; and to replace it with demonic socialism.
John Kelley smack in the Middle of the Socialismos
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:42:46 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
http://robertrowling.blogspot.com/2006/09/three-socialist-candidates-for.html
Re(1): John Kelley smack in the Middle of the Socialismos
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:32:28 PM by john kelley
the trowling post is your post or one he picked up from you why would he post it a year late otherwise, nifty little trick referencing your own post as proof.
At least it is not a denial...
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:28:09 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
the emails are dispersed throughout the web just in case the originals disappeared.
And many people are leary to travel to a Socialist Party website.
ohhhhh they must be paying you good Jaime because you cant make up drama like the stuff you write
are they Commies also?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 06:10:59 AM by Jamie Lunes
pop·u·lism: noun - A parallel political movement in America which emphasizes the needs of working people of low and moderate income. In early American history this movement had its origins in rural America. In Texas, the populist movement addressed the rights of ranchers and land owners in west Texas vs. the aggressive “takings” of land during the development of railroads, which was supported by government. In east Texas the populist movement had its roots in usury in bank lending practices with small farmers and landowners. In both cases corporations and supporting government administrations were the object of criticism and citizen revolt. In the contemporary situation, Texas political office-holders such as Rep. Wright Patman, Sen. Ralph Yarbrough, Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower and Attorney General Jim Mattox, are self identified Populists, as is candidate David Van Os.
according to Jaime K's logic the names listed above are commiunist also!!!!
Sound the ALARM!
ohhhhh they must be paying you good Jaime because you cant make up drama like the stuff you write.
John Kelley has admitted in an email that he was at a meeting Socialist Party of Texas Meeting
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 02:01:18 PM by Sol
Progressive Populist is not to be considered with the honorable movement of the PROGRESSIVE POPULISTS of Corpus Christ. By the way I am a POPULIST but not PROGRESSIVE POPULIST (the latter infers being a socialist member of the USA) in othe words: communist.
List of 25 members of Progressive Populist submited to Socialist Party USA as
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 02:04:18 PM by Polisurf
prospective members, new research indicates. OUt of 72 CCPPD, 25 are already being considered for membership?
Does the rest of the Demcratic Party know? I'm sure the government does....
The Progressive Populist Party is just a cool way devise to recruit members into the Socialist Party USA and at the same time discredit the Nueces County Democratic Party.
List of 25 members of Progressive Populist submited to Socialist Party USA as
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:13:58 PM by dannoynted1
they need to proudly tell all of the nueces democrats!
watt are they trying to hide?
Re(1): List of 25 members of Progressive Populist submited to Socialist Party USA as
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:49:56 PM by John Kelley
Please prove your allegation or remove it, as far as I know it is totally untrue. I am actually a member of the Texas Democratic Women, does that make me a woman too!! I am not a member of the socialist party, and by the way socialists and communists are not the same thing, your ignorance is showing.
My Name Better Not Appear John Kelley
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:07:57 PM by Ex Progressive Populist Member
I hereby resign from the Corpus Christi Progressive Populist Caucus... I want my name (and I am a Woman)... My name better not appear on the 25 member list submitted to the Socialist Party USA.
I do not want my name and family to be labeled for the rest of our days. I am not a member of any socialist or communist party or radical group.
I will hold you responsible Solomon Ortiz Jr. and Sr., Abel Cavada and the gang. You all should just admit the truth. Minutes of the Socialist Party USA and TExas have been put out. Everyone knows, stop playing word games John Kelley, Abel Cavada, give us our lives and our party back. Have some honor Solomon Jr. also.
Re(1): My Name Better Not Appear John Kelley
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:36:28 PM by john kelley
if you are a member of ppc, you know how to contact me and have your name removed, you need to read the minutes carefully and you will notice i was there as was abel as an observer to discuss mutual interests, i did not nor did i ever join. there have been no names from ppc submitted to the socialist party. if you want to resign you have to email me and let me know who you are.
Why now?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 08:57:00 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Why are you informing your loyalists now?
Why did you dedieve them for a whole election season?
Re(1): Why now?
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 10:33:45 PM by john kelley
no deal was ever struck or proceeded to the point where it needed to be discussed.
Convenient answer.....
Posted on September 11, 2006 at 00:32:24 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
however I disagree. When you ran for Democratic Chair the deal was fulfilled and consummated. Even if you would have ran for Dog Catcher the deal would have been fulfilled on your part.
Why dont you refer everyone to the link where the deal is described?
question
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 05:19:38 PM by Roger Stantos
Jaime,
I was told that your on ,,, is that true? If so, isnt that against all the socialist and commie talk you have been saying? You should think twice about throwing stones dont you think?
Your "personal" approach will.....
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 07:37:41 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
only bring back the objectivity to the discussion.
Your information is inaccurate.
As far as throwing stones, my house is transparent. Throw all the stones you like.
The issue taken by Los Kenedenos is the prevarication. The guise of a Democrat. The exploitation of a vulnerable people. It is the fact Kelley did not invite the Progressives and the Democrats to the Socialist Party of Texas Convention held right here in our city at the Bayfront Inn where the Broadcast booth of Air America is located. Is it not true that the Broacast Booth is owned by SPTX Executive Committee member or members?
Welfare is the WIA. There is a pending matter with respect to this slush fund. Why not look it up?
Jaime,
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 02:12:15 AM by HIMC
Who is Gail Blanpied and Reggie Bright?
Re(1): Jaime,
Posted on September 10, 2006 at 07:55:39 PM by The Host
Their my friends. Good people.
Why trust a man who has decieved South Texas?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 07:49:46 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
Why put faith into an entity who has no faith? No spirit as himself? Do you guys actually believe that chant?
Remember, these guys are not from here. They came to South Texas for the Politics and Government. They dont care about you or South Texas. Maybe you Roger or Mr. Kelley should run for dog catcher under the SPTX Party? Go for it DUDE!
Re(1): Why trust a man who has decieved South Texas?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 08:11:16 PM by Mijo
The Democratic Party is no more. A stanch Democrat I have been. No more. All thanks to the truth coming out. John Kelley and comrades (the Socialist Party) control the Democratic Party of Nueces County.
John Kelley was disingenuous. He lied to us the REAL Democrats
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 11:14:16 PM by bato
John Kelley was disingenuous. He lied to us the REAL Democrats. He was giving a report to the SOCIALIST PARTY OF TEXAS of our activities. Solomon Ortiz Jr. should have sounded the alarm bell. He didn't; he negotiated with the extremists. In order for anyone to join the Socialist Party of Texas one has to abided by the platform and principles of the Socialist Party USA. It calls for a "reconstruction" of U.S. society. For the Free Enterprise system to be replaced by a SOCIALIST SYSTEM. It makes commitment to connect with international radical groups. This is seditionist. It mirros Kelley's disingenousness; and Ortiz Jr.'s political expediency and convenience and greed. I do not believe in political dynasties. It is time for the Ortiz to allow others to run for office. OUR PARTY is down and Kelley and Ortiz Jr. are to blame.
Then it is not the Democratic Party anymore it is the Nueces Socialist Party....
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 08:47:01 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
It is sad so many sould will drown in the River.
Weak leadership in Alex Garcia?
Weak minds?
They will realize when it is too late.
Seemingly, it is already too late?
I believe there will be a split ticket phenomenon this election bigger than ever before.
Re(2): Why trust a man who has decieved South Texas?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 08:42:36 PM by la verdad
The "Progressive Communists" came down here for one major purpose-to control the minds,the airwaves and to grow in membership. Democrats and Republicans alike will help make it happen. Chairman of both parties will only serve as tamed token heads....
We need to tell ex-teacher John Kelley and the rest of their gang to simply RELOCATE....
Why can't communists be Democrats
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 10:06:08 PM by Sally Smith
I know most would agree at this point that the President of the Corpus Christi Progressive Populist is affilated with the radical socialist/communist organzation mentioned before. So in John Kelley and Les Cassidy; however, what is wrong with that?
They are fighting for social justice. They want a classless society. Demilitarize this nation. What is so wrong with these three things? Anybody?
John Kelley is an opportunistic individual he will revel in the publicity but damage the local Dems
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 11:11:02 PM by THE MAN
Juan Garcia said, "he nor his family is aligned with the communist or socialist party". None of these accusations on Juan Garcia will hold water. But Juan wouldn't have to deal with this type of name calling if people like John Kelley weren't actually associated with the socialist party. If Kelley speaks for any Democrat then the Republicans will say look at those Democrats being promoted by a socialist (they'll even say communist). Thats wrong. Kelley and his associations are what the Republicans will use against the Demos. Kelley has such a small following and even smaller stroke in the party, yet he will be Newt Gingrinch, Tom Delay type poster child (for republicans) of what is wrong with local Democrats. Since John Kelley is such an opportunistic individual he will revel in the publicity but damage the local Dems. Kelley with his sociailist views and connections are hurting real Democrats who have never been with the Socialists. Juan Garcia is too good a man, to be attacked over some ridiculous charges like being a socialist or communist. Juan is an American...an American Hero...the next state representative of district 32.
Re(1): Why can't communists be Democrats
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 10:38:00 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
These are words that appeal to the "warm fuzzies" of a vulnerable thirsty people.
Why did Kelley & Cassidy have to enter as a Trojan Horse if the cause is so righteous?
Can one answer this question?
Re(1): Why can't communists be Democrats
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 10:14:56 PM by JVC
First, Communists cannot be Democrats. Democrats cannot be Communists. These folks you mentioned were lying, used fake political identities to promote their own radical agendas.
Secondly, when they talk about "social justice" they are talking about "Social(ist) Justice" don't be fulled.
Thirdly, a classless society is not going to be achieved within this system nor though peaceful means. One, I am not nor many others going to give up our properties. We will stand our ground to this wimpy utopianists.
Finally, if you demilitarize this nation, we are cooked. Their international connections or support will move in and wipe us out.
YOu know what Sally, I challenge the President of the CC Progressive Group Attorney Abel Cavada to prove I am wrong, on this board, on this forum... please call him. I assure you he cannot prove nor justify his the false identity position he took.
John Kelley and team used him because he was a radical Hispanic who had participated int he Chicano Movement to have the defunct Raza Unida Party join him. By the way he controls www.larazaunida.com ... Most in the Chicano Civil Rights Movement hate his guts. He has betrayed that movement as well.
I challege the vendido to respond and defend the political position he took within our Democratic Party????? I give him 48 hours... if not I will have to declare victory.
Jaime, Does the name David Bright ring a bell?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:10:19 AM by r a
We all know about your secret meeting and dealings with D. bright of the WATTS law firm Jaime.
Why do you lie?
Remember what you say, "if you lie with dogs you get up with fleas".
Tells us more, or should david start talking?
Does the name liar ring your bell?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 04:48:17 AM by dannoynted1
if there are "dossiers secrets" then by all means now is the time.
Ask David Bright he can talk all he wants.....
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:21:58 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Show us the documentation. Back up your rhetoric with something other than your lack of credibility.
In fact why dont you call up the WATTS lawfirm and just ask for me.
They'll patch you right through.
Did you forget about Fernandez?
Is it true....
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 03:05:21 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
the Politicians have been given an ultimatum?
The Whole Package (now till November) for Air America Advertising tomorrow or not?
We will see who gives in to ultimatums.
Hurry fork out the big bucks to the Socialist Party of Texas DINOs
Has the Caller Times been fooled by another Plaisted?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 04:03:21 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_3799175,00.html
Flag ceremony to honor veterans
Ex-state Sen. Carlos Truan to speak at event
By Sara Lee Fernandez Caller-Times
May 22, 2005
Clovis Johnson, a retired welder and disabled veteran of World War II, has donated an American flag that he and other members of his retirement community will proudly fly on Memorial Day to honor the men and women who have served their country.
"The (Disabled American Veterans) sent me a flag and told me to fly it for the veterans and this is about the best way I know to fly it for the veterans," Johnson, 79, said from his residence at the Merrill Gardens at the Esplanade.
The flag will be dedicated during a 3:30 p.m. ceremony at the community's public flagpole complete with the Veterans Band Color Guard and a speech from former state Sen. Carlos Truan, DCorpus Christi, the retired dean of the Texas Senate. Truan has an aunt who is a resident at Merrill Gardens at the Esplanade.
Mikell Smith, general manager of the community, said the median age for residents is about 85, so almost everyone living at Merrill Gardens is either a veteran of World War II or the wife of a veteran.
"We celebrate this every year. This is a very important holiday for us," Smith said
Johnson was disabled in 1945 while serving as a Marine in the Pacific. He took shrapnel in the face that cut his cheek, tore his nose and embedded close to his left eye. He said doctors told him another inch and he would have died.
Johnson, a Corpus Christi native, said he hopes everyone will take a few minutes on May 30 to celebrate the true meaning of Memorial Day.
"I think it's a great show of respect for the servicemen that fought for our country," he said. "It just gives them joy . . . it shows them that someone cares."
Smith said the public is welcome to attend the ceremony and the reception following.
Contact Sara Lee Fernandez at 8863767 or fernandezs@caller.com
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
Carpe Diem
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 05:06:35 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Yes, by all means, seize the day
It was asked (to me) WATT is Socialism?
I couldnt reconcile the two images / theories.
The one I have seen in the emails with the one the Progressive Populists chant.
I couldnt put my finger on it so I suggested reading the emails.
If one notices many of the leaders of this group are not from here.
We know,
"We're from here"
Why are they here?
Why now?
WATT are they offering that you guys cannot refuse?
Remember, they will "gut" you one day.
Labor Unions believe these outsiders will bring a stronger union influence but the unions already control the politics but only for the benefit of self dealers who double as political "activist" and "consultants". Unions controlling the sign making is one example of ultimatums. Use these certain entities or WATT will happen? Will certain Unions retaliate on a candidate who uses a "scab" printer?
John Kelley lead us to believe he was a Democrat but he is an Operative of the Socialist Party.
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 11:20:29 PM by Jaime Kenedeno
When one speaks truth is that called trash.
Am I Lying?
Was I lying?
One must remember, I was obtuse to Homero because I thought it was only money. Homero had referred to some websites on the show (El Defenzor Live) but I was too dammned pissed to listen. Ask Solly. I suggested Solly run as a Democrat and drop the Progressive label. Ask him. Then Homero and I would not speak about it so I began to do a little research on Mr Cassidy. Then that is where I found Mr Kelley; smack in the middle of the Socialist Party of Texas. John Kelley was right there in the middle and was the subject of A Socialist overthrow of Solomon Ortiz in Congressional District #27. The thread was titled "Three socialist candidates for District 27: Raul Cano, (Les Cassidy or John Kelley) and Carlos Morin?" Now, have you read this conversation? Go read in there a little while and come back and tell me John Kelley is a good guy. He wanted to undermine and use us. He was already doing it. He lead us to believe he was a Democrat but he is an Operative of the Socialist Party.
PLEASE DO NOT USE SOMEONE'S NAME OR SCREENNAME..
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 04:59:59 PM by DEFENZOR WEBMASTER
or you will be banned.
STXC: We all know how you guys feel about DINOS
New Edition of El Defenzor... proves infiltration of Demo Party
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:07:38 AM by Maggie Kloon
Great journalism and research. I will warn my family and friends. If we don't educate our children about this things, they will become prey for the Cavadas and Kelleys and Joys of this world.
El Defenzor & family has guts to do right thing
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 12:06:22 PM by Martin Monte
I know El Defenzor is more than a business. It is a family of good people trying to protect south texas. Didos. You all have guts to keep our voice alive.
Re(1): New Edition of El Defenzor... proves infiltration of Demo Party
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:48:00 AM by its over
Can you say Mcarthyism?
Why not organize on the "good name" of the Socialist Party of Texas?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:59:11 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
These guys come down to South Texas and all of the sudden they define who is a Democrat and who is not?
John Kelley is an exposed DINO at best. We all know how you guys feel about DINOS.
Read the emails and tell me you are not punked.
Get out of the river people.
Re(1): Why not organize on the
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 05:29:40 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
http://sp-usa.org/pipermail/sptxsc_sp-usa.org/2005-August/thread.html#423
Vicente did not know what hit him or maybe he was just not cognizant of the overall implication
hello, idiot Abel Cavada, leader of progressives
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 06:18:33 PM by Cynical
Abel Cavada, the Chairman of the Populist Progressives was on a low rated am Radio. When he heard the wierdo vacente Carransa, an illiterate host, talkinga about religion said.... when someones uses religion he/she "is pandering to the Republicans."
Vacente did not know what hit him or maybe he was just not cognizant of the overall implication.
Abel Cavada is booring, has no class, seems like he just woke up from a mid-day respite. Is this the Commie that wants to take over our country? He's chicken shit.
Abel Cavada, according to the late Lupe Youngblood
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 00:08:38 AM by JVC
Always pointed out to us how during the 1970s, Abel Cavada (who currently heads the Corpus Christi Porgressive Populists and letter of intent to join the Socialist Party USA) according the Late Guadalupe "Lupe" Youngblood used to say he was using the Chicano Civil Rights Movement to promote COMMUNISM.
Youngblood always predicted that he would leave the Hispanic movement in the small towns of South Texas to join with Commie Gringo. LIttle did Lupe know he would pick up a "Spiritual Leftist" tropy ...
Vendido, by any other name is a yeah, vendido. Lupe's words.
John Kelley was right there in the middle and was the subject of A Socialist Overthrow
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 03:41:59 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Look around, the people know that Kelley was leading South Texas out to pasture.
Did you hear that rumble?
Or was it a whoosh?
I could care less if Homero gets paid; it is just the idea of somebody screwing a man after the man has helped him out.
I am making a difference in my community. Ask around?
Let me ask you, when one speaks truth is that called trash.
Am I Lying?
Was I lying?
You must remember I was obtuse to Homero because I thought it was only about money. Homero had referred to some websites on the show but I was too dammned pissed to listen. Ask Solly. I suggested Solly run as a Democrat and drop the Progressive label. Ask him. Then Homero and I would not speak about it so I began to do a little research on Mr Cassidy. Then that is where I found Mr Kelley; smack in the middle of the Socialist Party of Texas. John Kelley was right there in the middle and was the subject of A Socialist overthrow of Solomon Ortiz in Congressional District #27. The thread was titled "Three socialist candidates for District 27: Raul Cano, (Les
Cassidy or John Kelley) and Carlos Morin?"
One must remember Congressional District #27 is more than just Congressman Ortiz it includes many elected positions. One must remember they would have settled with Dog catcher. This would start the ball rolling.
Now, have you read this conversation?
Go read in there a little while and come back and tell me John Kelley is a good guy. He wanted to undermine and use us. He was already doing it. He lead us to beleive he was a Democrat but he is an Operative of the Socialist Party.
Re(1): Abel Cavada, according to the late Lupe Youngblood
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 03:10:51 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Web Press International
Bob Rowling: Three socialist candidates for District 27: Raul Cano, (Les
Cassidy or John Kelley) and Carlos Morin?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaime Kenedeño
Date: Sep 3, 2006 11:33 PM
Subject: [Nueces Democrats] "If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas and
deserve scrutiny."
To: kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com
[http://www.sp-usa.org/pipermail/sptxsc sp-usa.org/2005-August/thread.html
]
Hola Joy and Abel:
Great to hear of your interest in knowing more about the SP Texas and of
our
still proposed campaign for Dist. 27th by our compañero Raul Cano.
Regarding the Socialist Party of Texas (SPTX), SPTX is a state affiliate
of
the Socialista Party USA (www.sp-usa.org). As part of the SP USA, we,
SPTX,
"strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under
their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society
in
which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community." You can
get
more on our party at:
http://sp-usa.org/principles.html
http://www.sp-usa.org/joinus/memberform.html
As far as District 27th run against Solomon Ortiz, there are still many
factors that we have too look into before a major electoral campaign is
started. As you, compañeros, are aware from your work in LRUP, there is
ground work to be done. Right now, we looking into the process of filing,
time frame, etc. We also need to build up our volunteer base and funding.
Our party will need assistance in electoral legal matters, fundraising,
flyering, poll watching, and starting to get the contacts needs for public
presentations and evens at the key cities in Dist. 27th.
If you are interested in joining the party or at least being part of
helping
out with our electoral work, please, feel free to contact me via email at
ectoren at sbcglobal.net .
in solidarity,
Erik Carlos Torén
State Secretary
Socialist Party of Texas
sptexas at sp-usa.org
(956) 342-8689 - cell
We are from Corpus Christi and travel to the valley weekly on business.
Abel, is an attorney and I do all the rest, I am sure you know what that
means.
Abel, my husband was involved in La Raza Unida in his younger years. We
are seeking to be involved again. We tried a group here in Corpus
Christi,
but they seem stuck in the Democratic box. We are wondering about your
group. We are also, interested in the rumor of you running for Congress.
Steve Rossignol stever at moment.net
Sun Oct 16 11:21:55 EST 2005
* Previous message: [Sptxsc] Fw: [Convention2005] Delegation Captains
* Next message: [SPTXSC] Next Lone Star Socialist
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hello All--
It's time to get another issue of the Lone Star Socialist out, our Fall
2005.
I've got one article from John Kelley. Anybody else want to write
something. Valley Report? Bill? Breck? Mike Y?
Houston Report?
I'd like to put something in about our proposed congressional campaign,
but I will hold off on this until after the phone teleconference to see what
we decide.
Soli
Steve Rossignol
..
URL: /pipermail/sptxsc sp-usa.org/attachments/20051016/aaff23c3/attachment.htm
Contact Us
Contact the Socialist Party of Texas in Your Area
For technical problems, such as missing links or web site errors, etc.,
please contact the Webmaster.
AustinSocialist Party of Texas c/o Rossignol168 Chula VistaBlanco, TX
78606-4802E-mailDallas - Ft. Worth North Texas Socialist PartyWeb
siteE-mail: B. GuiseEl PasoCarl StarrE-mail HoustonEarl DivokyE-mail
LaredoMichael S. Yoder E-mailLower Rio Grande ValleyPartido Socialista del
ValleSocialist Party of the RGVRaul F. Cano, Jr.E-mail Corpus ChristiLes
Cassidy E-mail
Minutes of the 2005 Socialist Party of Texas Convention
August 6, 2005
Presidential Suite, Ramada Inn, 600 Water Street, Corpus Christi, Texas
In attendance: Raul Cano, Brownsville; Emma GonzaLes, Brownsville; Bill
Fulcher, Brownsville; Erik Carlos Toren, San Juan; Les Cassidy, Corpus
Christi; Michael Yoder, Laredo; Steve Rossignol, Blanco County
Observers (at various times): John Kelley, Nick Braune, Linda Braune, Joan
Braune, Samantha Garcia, Greg Pason
Cassidy (with Kelley) stated that people in Corpus had been involved with
United Peace and Justice as well as the Progressive populist Caucus. They
have a radio program entitled Media Focus, and are publishing a local paper
entitled The Red Snapper. The Progressive Caucus works with SP-TX folks.
Kelley talked about counter-recruitment activities and the uses of art to
send a political message. There have also been anti-Walmart actions and a
fund-raiser for Kinky Friedman
From: Les Cassidy (mailto:
LAWLES at msn.com)
To: Steve Rossignol (mailto: stever at moment.net)
Cc: carlos morin (mailto:
goodolls at swbell.net) ; John Kelley
(mailto:greatblueheron777 at yahoo.com
) ; Raul Cano (mailto:
raucan at msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: Three Socialist Candidates for District 27
Steve,
What would you think of having 3 candidates run for Cong. Dist 27? Raul
Cano in the valley, Carlos Morin in Kingsville, and myself or John Kelley
in
Corpus Christi? We could have a primary and it would be a great way to
organize our party in South Texas. It's not about winning the election
anyway.
Les Cassidy
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Cassidy
To: Steve Rossignol
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:01 PM
Subject: Fw: [CorpusChristiPPC] Re: Cost of War
----- Original Message -----
From: John Kelley
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:05 PM
To: Patrick Phillips;
corpuschristippc at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CorpusChristiPPC] Re: Cost of War
Hey Patrick,
Hope you had a good trip. It has been busy. We are working on a counter
recruitment campaign this fall. As part of that campaign I would like to
show your film as a consciousness raiser and bill it as a Support the Troops
event, charge an admission and send the proceeds to the vets group you work
with Alyssa mentioned. I am posting your note and my response to our Corpus
Christi Progressive Popoulist Caucus who is leading the effort. Lori Busch
is in charge of the effort and will be contacting you after we meet on the
25th to follow up. Thank you for your development of this film
John Kelley
In a message dated 08/27/2005 5:40:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
raucan at msn.com writes:
We have to consider that with all the talk from labor about uniting
against
Ortiz, that the Democratic Party might be setting up the stage for Eddie
Lucio. Lucio is very popular in the Valley.
Raul
That might be true. But would Lucio be any better than Solomon? He is
somewhat of a closet Republican. Hector Uribe was in my office a few weeks
ago;
and he says that he doesn't think that Lucio can beat Solomon. Lucio and
Solomon are two of a kind.
Uribe held Lucio's senate seat for about ten years before Lucio beat him.
His office is in Austin, which gets his thinking out of the Valley.
If Ortiz does beat Lucio in the Democratic Primary, and YOU were the
independent candidate running against Ortiz, that means that Labor would
likely
unite behind YOU, especially if you can get some support from the
plaintiff
lawyers, like Les, and hung around some of the union offices and asked for
their
support.
You should come out strong about the right of poor people to get redress
from the courts. Everybody is harping about "law suit abuse." So the above
the
above position might not get you a majority of the votes. But you don't
need a majority of the votes to win in the November General Election. You
would
need only a little over a third. You would need some money that the
plaintiffs' lawyers seem to have with which to advertise and put up signs.
Bill Fulcher, Enrolled Agent, MBA
610 West Elizabeth Street
Brownsville, TX 78520-6316
(956) 541-4874
Fax (956) 544-3260
Hola Bill:
I think Raul meant that one way to bring back the official labor orgs. is,
ta-da!, Lucio!
No. I don't he is better than Solomon. Same people from the same electoral
machine.
When there was a campaign to organize Fruit of the Loom, a big underwear
making factory in Harlingen, Lucio went in and made a big speech to the
employees and advised them all to vote "NO" to the union.
If labor supports this guy, I'll be very disappointed.
What the Hell has the electoral machine got to do with it? These
candidates
think what kind of message to send out that will get them the most money
from political contributions without costing them too many votes. Since
most of
the other candidates have been farther to the right, these actions and
positions haven't cost them too many votes.
Uribe wasn't any better, although I supported him as being better than
some
of the others. But, when he was first elected state representative, before
he became senator, he came out in favor of the "right-to-work law.
Raul should send out the message that he wants to protect poor people from
quack doctors and insure them just reimbursements when they are
injured--and
support working people's rights. I'm sure we can think up some.
Add boogur-nose Solly to the list
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 11:53:42 PM by Serious
What a bozo "Solly" is. He hates his own people and culture but will socialise with Godless Commies, pure unmitigated EVIl.
Just glad he was not raised in our hometown of Robstown. Punki
Re(1): Add boogur-nose Solly to the list
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 11:57:46 PM by Add fartknockur Andrade to the list
What a retard.
Remember the BNP?
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 03:46:34 AM by Haley (the genuine article)
And somewhere down the line Singapore and the deviance of our Congressman will come into play.
WATT happened to Lencho?
Did he get old or is the water to hot in the Port of Brownsville.
I still have the documents Rowland.
And there is plenty more to come.
Re(1): Remember the BNP?
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 02:28:57 AM by Hot Water
BND fires Port of Brownsville director
BY EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
The Brownsville Herald
September 8, 2006 — Brownsville Navigation District commissioners on Wednesday fired CEO and Port of Brownsville Director Bernard List after less than a year on the job.
The sole dissenting commissioner, Peter M. Zavaletta, described the move as a return to self-dealing and cronyism.
Board Chairman Martin Arambula did not return calls for comment on Thursday, but he did issue a brief statement.
“While we believe that Mr. List has many fine qualities as a port director, the board at this time wishes to go in a different direction,” Arambula stated. “We wish Mr. List the best in his future endeavors.”
Arambula did not elaborate on the board’s new direction. Vice Chairman Luigi Cristiano also did not return a telephone call for comment.
List, who would have finished his first year with BND on Monday, was away from the office Thursday and was not expected to be in today, staff said. List also was not available for comment.
Arambula and Cristiano voted to terminate List together with board Commissioners Roy de los Santos and Carlos Masso at Wednesday’s meeting, following a closed session.
Zavaletta said Thursday that it is a sad day for all who love the port and truly want it to be the port of Texas.
“This vote unquestionably marks a return to the culture of incestuousness, self-dealing and cronyism that bred the spending of $21 million in public monies on a non-existent bridge, with little to no shame or remorse,” Zavaletta said.
“By firing Mr. List after only one year at the helm, this board has seriously injured the port and greatly impaired its ability to attract the most qualified, competent and degreed candidate to succeed him for fear that any successor would be subjected to the same treatment, if not worse, than Mr. List was,” he said. “Sadly, instead of selecting a successor from among the best, this board has relegated the port to sift from among the leftovers of the leftovers.”
Zavaletta said numerous residents attended Wednesday’s meeting, voicing their support for List, including former Brownsville Mayor Blanca Vela and former BND Commissioner Joe Gayman, who said List had been the best of 46 applicants and urged the board to renew his contract.
Zavaletta said that others included Tony Capella, representing the maquiladora association from Matamoros, and Richard Jaross, president of Esco Marine, who noted that List has vision and is without a political agenda.
Nick Shaw, president of the Bedoli Group and on BND’s master plan committee, also voiced support for List as did Bill Connor.
The board also heard from Juan Carlos Marquinez with Aceros Planetas Mexico in the steel industry, who also expressed support for List.
List was selected last year after an extensive search following the death of Raul A. Besteiro, the former CEO. List relocated to Brownsville from Florida.
Arambula and Masso have worked with List for about three months since their election this summer to the BND board.
eperez-trevino@brownsvilleherald.com
Posted on Sep 08, 06 | 12:00 am
Re(2): Add boogur-nose Solly to the list
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 02:01:51 AM by Comandante Soli
Joe Blow sued his own neighbor due to a dog fight... Air America Firm (azzholu) as his lawyer. What a joke he is not to mention a social (ist) peewee!
just look it up in the net records. In black and white.
Hey, You are going to have to do better than that....
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 03:20:46 AM by Haley ( the genuine article)
First of all your information is wrong with David Bright. He does not represent me in any case nor has he represented me. Put the court record out and show us where this is true.
Next, I dont have to be politcally correct and I could care less WATT you try to spill out of that pussy cat mouth of yours.
Next, I will be sure to call Whataburger tomorrow and let them know just how uninjured you are.
Now to the heart of the matter, Olga is a married woman. I will make the call tomorrow to let her hubby (who is ill) know just exactly how close you guys are.
Then we will go to South Texas and let them see WATT a two timer we have for DMC Board of Regents.
So you want to play hard ball with that injection of $$$$$$$$$. I have not even begun little boy. You dissapoint me.
Oh, yeah who gave you the dough?
Now, we know why you are so cocky.
You suck dude.
"If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas and deserve scrutiny."
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 03:09:41 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Re: "If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas and deserve scrutiny."
From: Jaime Kenedeno kingalonzoalvarezdepinedaxiii@gmail.com
To: John Kelley greatblueheron777@yahoo.com
Date: Sep 6 2006 - 5:25pm
Why have you not been forthright with the people who have put their faith
behind you? There is much more than you sitting in on a meeting John Kelley.
You are an active participant in the Congressional District 27 SPTX
infilteration. Socialism is not against the law and in fact it is your right
as an American to practice WATT ever ideology you choose. But why decieve
and operate as a Democrat? The people at STXC have been harping on DINOs.
Well you are the epitomy of a DINO. As far a myself and Social Programs for
disability; your information is wrong. Nobody gives me anything. The
programs you mentioned would change if we were undermined by a Socialist
Party like the one SP-TX. Hey dude, just admit it to these people who put
their faith in you. That is the best thing you can do. If you choose to
resist Mr Davila will grow tired of the problems you create.
On 9/4/06, John Kelley wrote:
jaime,
let's see you have proved that i sat in on a sptx in a meeting a year ago
where we talked about issues we had in common, what a biggy. Last I knew
socialism wasnt outlawed in the U.S. Besides, it is my understanding you
are living off from a socialist program, disability. Medicaid, medicare,
social security, public roads, schools, and other services are examples of
socialism. I guess you can be forgiven for not knowing that.
john
On 9/3/06, John Kelley wrote:
Dear Jaime,
I have placed your incoherent, ignorant, useless ramblings on my spam
list. Thought I'd do you the courtesy of letting you know.
John Kelley
--
Kenedeno & Associates
--------------------------------------------------
Hey John,
Thanks for letting me know. Maybe you should have let South Texas know of
the SPTX affiliation from the beginning? Are you aware of the evidentiary
support it took for me to make these incoherent ramblings as you refer to
them. Be sure to keep checking your spam box. I am preparing to blast a few
thousand emails containing not my ramblings; but the ramblings of you and
your Socialist Party of Texas Comrades. One of the discussions is regarding
the 27th Congressional District. I voted for you John Kelley. I too believed
in your rhetoric. We will let South Texas be the Judge.
TTFN
Re(1): Talk show hosts
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 10:46:43 AM by Elwood Blues
Yo,Jaime..just to make sure I'm on the same page..wasn't it you who was telling me here a couple months ago what a great guy John Kelley was? Wasn't it you or Danno who were trying to get me to listen to his radio show?..who told me that I needed to start listening to these guys more often?
Guess the honeymoon's over,eh dude? This is why you should take all these talking heads on the radio with a grain of salt..no matter who they are.They all start out square enough..they're going to give you a "different perspective"..they're going to "educate you"..they're going to "tell it like it is".."give you the facts no one else will give you"..blah blah blah..but eventually they all end up the same hurdy-gurdy players standing on the street corner,trolling for an audience.Some people catch on pretty quick..others,it takes a little more time..still others never do.
Re(2): Talk show hosts
Posted on September 8, 2006 at 04:23:20 PM by Jaime & dannoynted1
amen eb!
south texas chisme can't handle the truth
south texas chisme can't handle the truth!
Posted on September 6, 2006 at 08:32:31 PM by dannoynted1
john kelley tell everybody to man the life boats and row to land. The Ship is sinking.
Re(1): south texas chisme can't handle the truth!
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 02:51:26 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Singapore?
Solomon Grande?
Solomoncito?
Shamsie?
SPTX leveraged the 27th Congressional District.
WATT did they use?
who can't handle the truth?!
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 03:32:57 AM by dannoynted1
BlogThis!Texas State Representative House District 33
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Now the priceless gift provided from an unlikely source
CONFIDENTIAl
9/7/06 1:10:05 AM
House district 33 of Corpus Christi, Texas received a gift from an unlikely source………. The Governor.
Now in November the voters will get to vote (their way) in the true spirit and fundamental nature of democracy.
On August 13, 2006 the democratic precinct chairs were asked to vote in the act of the actual voters vote.
The voters of district 33 did not ask this position; but NOW the real primary vote will happen for the voters of HD33.
Legally Allowed, A GIFT of a true vote is ~~~~~~~~to vote in November!
Voters will, as a final point, have their chance to say watt and whom they want despite the fraud of those who have attempted to exploit the voters and the people of who love and care @South Texas!
The Founding Fathers would be proud!
posted by dannoynted1 @ 11:49 PM 0 comments links to this post~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Now, at least it will be a vote of the constituents of HD #33.
STATEMENT OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, JR.
DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 33
(In response to the Governor calling a special election for House
District 33)
"The day I filed to run for House District 33, I did it with the
intention of providing the constituents representation in their best
interest. It is within the Governor's authority to call for a
special election in this race and look at his decision as a benefit"
The Progressive Populist Socialists are now trying to control the main schedule of the N.C. Democratic Party
People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 10:15:16 PM by Turned of by Democratic Party Decption
The Progressive Populist Socialists are now trying to control the main schedule of the N.C. Democratic Party. Why the People's forum (People's republic of Mao?)... Hey, we need to pull the weeds that have grown inside the yard of the Democratic Party. John Kelly ... Ortiz Jr. let them in. He has to be held accountable. He should have informed us instead of breaking bread with them.
Solly should rebuke the censorship of the STXC.....
Posted on September 6, 2006 at 02:40:26 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
he must rebuke these YANQUI Socialists as well.
Solly has made the committment to creating open government
The Ortiz "progressive" supporters demand and practice censorship. These kind of bad faith actions are losing this thing for Soli.
What are the "chismosos" afraid of?
Are they not the ones who claim to speak "truth to power"?
Are they not the ones who loathe DINOs?
These guys (WTP Soviet) are bad news for any circle in which they revolve.
Re(1): Solly should rebuke the censorship of the STXC.....
Posted on September 6, 2006 at 03:00:06 AM by herownself
What is sad about the John and Solly connection is that last year John was bad mouthing Solly to the nth degree. Now he acts as if they have always been bosom buddies. I hope Solly is aware of this and is protecting himself.
http://stxc.blogspot.com/2006/09/hd33-has-ortiz-mccomb-and-noyola.html
Sylvia Samniego of the Founder of PPC will be on KEYS in the Morning.
Posted on September 6, 2006 at 02:23:42 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
WATT did she know?
WATT does she know now?
Will she distance herself and the PPC from Comrade Kelly and the SPTX?
Certainly, one realizes this radio station is unamerican and "We the People" is not us, the people of South Texas.
This goes much deeper into our already established power structures.
The goal is to DISTRUCT our established groups and organizations. To do this they must infiltrate as posers of political parties, city and county governments. Even if they get a SPTX member elected to "Dog Catcher".
In their (SP TX) own words,
"If we want to build a party, we need to get some candidates elected, even if
it is only for dog catcher."
http://sp-usa.org/pipermail/sptxsc_sp-usa.org/2005-August/000385.html
In an article, What is Progressivism?
Populist Political Progressivism is defined:
"To distruct of concentrations of power in the hands of politicians, corporations, elite families and special interst groups as represented by political and conservative political action committees, lobbies, or think tanks."
*WTP June 5, 2006 (no author).
The SPTX works it's way into established groups of people ie; Organizations, Clubs, Labor Unions and any who might be vulnerable. Thirsty souls will drink from the well, it does not matter who's well it is. Same goes for poor, disenfranchised and the ones who need the alliance for expediency. Once dependence matures, the distruction begins.
SPTX Counter Recruitment: NYU and the University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA).
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 02:01:47 AM by Suson@DoD
Student Protest Prevents CIA Recruiting Rvent at New York University
-Press Release by Elizabeth Wrigley-Field and Sam Pipp
A planned CIA recruiting event at New York University (NYU) was cancelled after the Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) called a protest demanding the CIA abandon its recruiting program at NYU. 20 hours before the recruiting event was scheduled to begin, its organizers sent an email to all those who had registered, headlined, "The CIA Speaker Event scheduled for Thursday, March 31 @6PM has been CANCELLED due to the possibility of a protest by the Campus Antiwar Network."
The event -- which was scheduled to include speakers from the CIA, a dinner, and a raffle for prizes such as an iPod Shuffle -- was organized by students in an NYU marketing class whose classwork for the semester is to market the CIA to their peers at NYU. They will be graded on their efforts; the CIA, which provided them a $2500 budget for their project, retains ownership of the marketing campaign they create. The CIA hired the company EdVenture Partners to broker this arrangement.
This alliance between the university and the CIA to market CIA employment on campus is taking place at only two universities this semester: NYU and the University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA). Students at both schools have rallied in protest against the program.
"We believe they're testing the waters to see how brazenly they can recruit on campuses without encountering student opposition, before spreading programs like this to colleges across the country," said Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, a senior at NYU and member of the Campus Antiwar Network. "Forcing them to cancel their big speaking event is a huge victory. It showed them they can't market an agency that supports torture and murder around the world without a fight."
After the event was cancelled, about twenty students rallied in celebration outside the building where it was scheduled to have been held, passing out fact sheets about the CIA's history of assassination attempts and support for brutal dictatorships. Ten students went to challenge the event's organizers to a public debate on campus about the CIA -- an offer which was declined.
"Their marketing campaign says they want to 'dispel the myths' about the CIA," said David Florey, a senior at NYU and member of the Campus Antiwar Network. "But they refused our offer to debate. They can't dispel the reality of the CIA's own practices. It's not a myth that the CIA organized the program in Afghanistan that trained Osama bin Laden."
PART OF A NATIONAL COUNTER-RECRUITMENT MOVEMENT
NYU's protest comes in the context of a counter-recruitment movement that has swept colleges and high schools across the country. Students at schools ranging from Seattle Central Community College and San Francisco State University on the West Coast, to City College New York and and Southern Connecticut State University on the East Coast, have chased military recruiters off their campus this schoolyear.
Expensive private colleges like NYU don't get the same kinds of military recruiters. The only recruiters NYU has seen this year came from the Judge Advocate General (the legal arm of the military), which faced protest from NYU students opposed to the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the prosecution of war resisters. But students at NYU see their CIA Off Campus campaign as a contribution to the national counter-recruitment movement.
"We know that because of the general affluence of the students at NYU, direct military recruitment will never be as fruitful as the government would hope, but in the past few months, we've seen a significant increase in the presence of OTHER forms of recruitment for militaristic operations," said Sam Pipp, a sophomore at NYU and member of the Campus Antiwar Network. "This CIA recruitment in the guise of a class represents a campaign of sorts on the part of the government to pull as many as they can into the military machine."
"We're here as part of a growing counter-recruitment movement that has the potential to stop Bush's ability to carry out his agenda of war and terror," said Leia Petty, a member of the Campus Antiwar Network, at the protest. "We're here to say that torture and terror are not career opportunities, and we don't intend to back down until the CIA drops all efforts to recruit at NYU."
THIS PROTEST IS JUST THE BEGINNING
Two days before NYU's protest, students at UTPA had protested the CIA recruiting event at their campus, where the CIA is explicitly marketing itself as an employer of choice for Latinos. "I think the students in the marketing class are naive to think they're offering any opportunity to Hispanics," said Samantha Garcia, president of Students for Peace and Justice and the University Socialist Forum at UTPA, two groups that protested the CIA. Garcia noted the CIA's history of involvement in Latin America, such as its involvement in the overthrow of Chile's left-wing leader Salvador Allende and its support of Nicaragua's Contras.
At both schools, students plan to keep fighting the CIA presence and opposing the U.S. occupation in Iraq, which they see as intimately connected. "Bush says we're bringing democracy to Iraq," Wrigley-Field said. "But the history of the CIA shows the U.S. is the last country that can bring democracy anywhere."
Re(1): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 11:28:10 PM by Want Entire List- Progressive Socialists
I want to know who they all are. We need to investigate them all. WE NEED TO KNOW IF THEY HAVE BEEN ATTENDING COMMUNIST MEETING... if so they need to be reported, and ousted from our party.
Re(2): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 03:44:04 PM by Elwood Blues
Isn't it ironic that the same people who are wetting themselves over the perception that "communism" has reared it's ugly head within the South Texas Democratic Party,are..by and large..the same people who "long for the return of Aztlan"?
Think about it..the definition of communism is:
"A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common,actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state"...or..
"A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party".
Now..from what I've seen of the Aztlan crowd..it seems to me that a form of COMMUNISM is what they aspire to.A society wherin the people,as a whole, hold the wealth..wherein all businesses are owned by the people,as a whole,..all property is owned by the people,as a whole.
A system of government that eschews capitalism,the free market and free enterprise,where individuals themselves do not own property and land..instead,everything is owned collectively by the people themselves..that land,businesses and property are to be seized and "returned" to the people..isn't that the economic premise of Aztlan?
That,my friends..by definition..is communism..and from what I've read both here,and from other sources on the proponents of Aztlan,communism is what they aspire to.
That being said,I find it both surprising and mildly amusing that there are people are outraged over the notion that communism may be infiltrating area Democratic politics.Personally,I have no dog in this fight..I wouldn't vote for either Noyola OR Son of Sol on a bet,and I suspect the charges being leveled here against Son of Sol have more to do with sour grapes on the part of Noyola supporters,seeing as he lost the Dem nomination to Son of Sol,than any tangible proof he's a communist,but hey..whatever works.If tagging Son of Sol a communist is what it'll take to get his worthless,scumbag old man finally voted out of Congress in November,then by all means..knock yourselves out.Call him Lenin,compare him to Mao,say he's related to Castro for all I care..as long as it sends his old man packing in the process.
Hell..I'll even start a "chisme" for you Son of Sol haters..I heard from a friend of a friend of a guy who mows Son of Sol's next door neighbor's yard,that Sol Jr. has a commie flag hanging in his garage,and that he's thiking of naming his firstborn son "Karl Marx Ortiz".
Culture of Aztlan and Communism not same
Posted on September 9, 2006 at 08:05:24 PM by Maggie
Being proud of one's native american culture is not communism. You way our there. If there are Aztlanos, who want to break from this country. It is not what I or those I know condone. We are not stupid to believe that we can win any war against ourselves.
EB, keep in mind that a few years ago, Mexican americans were denied their native american heritage by catholic schools as well as public. We used to get slapped on the mouth etc. It is pride to be part of the first americans. You just don't know.
Re(3): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 05:21:17 PM by dannoynted1
insightful as usual eb
Re(2): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 00:13:07 AM by All Commies!
YeS!
The Defenzor! has finally done it!
Thankyou for Stoping the Red Army!
Hahahaaa How much are they paying you to keep up this JOKE! hahaha you guys are pathetic!
Re(3): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 02:59:02 AM by Solly's cousin
It disturbs me how much influence John has over my cousin. I warned him. To this day his eyes light up when John contact him.
What is wrong with him?
Re(4): People's Forum? or Communist forum?
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 03:20:29 AM by aggie
it must be the "one mind at a time" chyme or shyme!
Must be working......
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 01:16:11 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
on "One Mind At A Time".
If it was not a big deal then why didnt the CCPPC proudly announce their affiliation with the Socialist Party of Texas. Why not invite everyone to attend the Socialist Party Convention held at the Ramada Inn, 600 Water Street, Corpus Christi, Tx? The same place where Comrade Kelley now broadcasts from.
Kelley admitted Socialist Party of Texas Loyalist committed fraud upon the people of South Texas and the Nueces Democratic Party. He also lied on an election instrument so as to run as a Democrat. Tampering with Government Documents. This is subversion of Government and Election Fraud.
BEWARE OF THE COMMUNIST POPULIST UPRISING.
Posted on September 3, 2006 at 07:00:08 PM by La Verdad (Le Truth)
They have been here for awhile disguising themselves among the Democratic Party. The Ex Democratic Party Chairman Solomon Ortiz Jr. knew this and expressed freely "I don't believe like my old man". Solomon jr. endorsed John Kelley as party chair. When John Kelley lost the race he blamed it on El Defenzor. He failed to realize that when it comes to the integrity of El Defenzor, it has wide and popular support both from liberals and moderates and even level-headed radicals as well. The reason: it has both a track history of truthfulness and internal gumption.
On the other hand, the mentioned group of Communists headed by John Kelley are being exposed by their own doing and by their own irrelevant platform.
Re(1): BEWARE OF THE COMMUNIST POPULIST UPRISING.
Posted on September 4, 2006 at 02:50:38 PM by Jesse
Great show today on 1440 keys.
I am not supporting any Ortizes
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 02:08:05 AM by Josie
The brilliant expose on the Corpus Christi Progresssive Populist Caucus clearly demonstrates no exaggeration was injected. The facts do speak for themselves. I have checked many a link, googled it, and found all the sources are true.
I refuse to be in denial and expect that action be take by my party leaders.
Re(1): I am not supporting any Ortizes
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 11:25:47 PM by Just The Facts
The Ortiz Dynasty need to come down. It will only perpetuate the corruption and frateralization with subverstionist communists. It has send our Democratic Party back many years.
Jr., instead of warning us, made a deal with them. He sold his soul, spoiled "red" brad.
"The public has a right to know
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 03:44:53 AM by Porter Goss -
Porter Goss - 01:55pm Aug 28, 2006 Central
Secret senator blocks bill, creating classic 'whodunit'
Something may be afoot as legislation that would provide database to track federal spending may never be voted on
WASHINGTON - In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver.
An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.
The measure had been unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and had support from heavy hitters such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed on Aug. 4 when someone put a hold on the measure.
Now the bill is in political limbo. Under senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.
"It really is outrageous to do this in the dead of night as Congress is recessing," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a budget watchdog group based in Washington. "The public has a right to know how the go
Porter Goss..Dem crusader,ladies and gentlemen..LOL
Posted on September 7, 2006 at 03:58:22 PM by Elwood Blues
LOL..trolling the waters over in this neck of the woods now,Porter? You'll probably have better luck here,as most everyone here is a Democrat.On the downside,though..only a few of them are up to speed on politics outside South Texas.
Oh..and btw..TWO senators placed a "secret hold" on the legislation..A Republican..Ted Stevens..and a Democrat..Robert Byrd..two of the biggest pork barrel spenders in Washington.
Since we both know that since Stevens is a "Repuke",then it's a given he's scum..but is Byrd scum,too..or does he get a free pass because he's a Dem?
Re(1): I am not supporting any Ortizes
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 10:58:19 AM by learn to espell
Good because Ortizes are not on the ballot. Ortiz's are
http://nuecespresidentialsuite.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-am-hoping-that-les-in-corpus-will-be.html
Posted on September 6, 2006 at 03:51:09 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
I wonder the History of the Inn's Presidential Suite.
Good Piece of Local Trivia?
Re(2):)supporting any Ortizes
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 08:56:55 PM by dannoynted1
why was a socialist running for nueces county democratic chair?
when he was/is not a democrat?
that is a dino!
i voted for mumphord!
Wrong . . .
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 04:18:35 PM by Grammar Fairy
. . . oh illiterate one. Ortiz's is the possessive case.
Re(1): Wrong . . .
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 08:58:37 PM by dannoynted1
or is it the progressive case?
hehehehe. Progressive cause or clause
Posted on September 5, 2006 at 11:20:48 PM by JVC
Comandante Vicente Clause.... hehehehe.
First and Foremost Homero Villarreal is My Friend.
Commies organizing in Nueces County, progressive populists?
Posted on August 28, 2006 at 03:51:15 AM by Realistic Patriot
The group is led by some folks who came from up north... they call themselves progressive populists...
They handpicked the flowers from the garden... Hispanic who have been involved with the Chicano movement in a tapid manner but have a socialist leaning... Abel Cavada, an CC attorney, is the Prest of the Corpus Christi Progressive Populist Caucus (CCPPC). If you google his name on the internet... u will find he published in "La Nueva Raza" (progressive socialist Hispanic publication) a tribute to Emma Tenayuka (who married Homer Brooks)... Emma was recruited into the communist party of texas at 17 or so... She became the PRest eventually of the Texas Communist Group...
Abel Cavada defines a true progressive populist his his article on the Bolivorian Revolution... (go to larazaunida.com)... He has Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela who models himself after Fidel Castro and Lenin) is, according to Cavada, "a true progressive populist... read the internet article...
Why does the air america core group/ say they are socialist? why do they cravenly hide behind the "Democratic Party" under the "CCPPC"? They have always operated that way...
JOhn Kelley put posters of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Eugene Debs, Big Bill Haywood (member/leader of the American Communist Party and IWW)...Marx, and several other communist... Some of the quotes on the posters openly condemn the U.S. and its form of Government...
Are people really that naive? Naif?
First and Foremost Homero Villarreal is My Friend.
Posted on August 29, 2006 at 03:27:26 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Monday, August 28, 2006
WATT serious Democrat would welcome Communists into it's party
First and Foremost Homero Villarreal is My Friend.
Politics are meaningless, when it comes to this kind of slouchy thoughtless and pissy rebuttals. Solly, Juan and Jimmy I extend my hand out at this time and request another solution. Hey, if you guys want to be Progressive Democrats then come out and explain it to us. Don't backdoor South Texas. I promise you, it will be a big mistake. Do you really want to test the BYTE? Do you think I will back down? He wont admit it, but even Vicente is disenchanted. We The People Newspaper is not representative of the name "it should be called the Abel Cavada & John Kelly Newspaper"
It aint worth it guys?
Monday, August 28, 2006
Homero Villarreal
On today's Carranza Show a caller said that he had heard an annoument that tomorrow with Bob Jones, Homero was going to expose the communist in the Demorcatic party. IT IS TIME TO STOP HOMERO. NO SERIOUS DEMOCRAT SHOULD BUY ANY ADS from Homero. No matter what Joe Flores says about him.
posted by coastalbendoldmajor @ 9:03 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:46 PM, dannoynted1 said...
you are wrong oldmajor about homero,
all those "serious" democrats need to pay their bills they already owe homer!
and you know i know watt and who i am talking about!
there were committments made and not honored!
shall we stroll down memory lane or are "we the people" going to pay for services rendered?
or is this just a bunch of chisme as opposed to verdades?
At 12:08 AM, Jaime Kenedeño said...
Serious Democrat?
WATT serious Democrat would welcome Communists into it's party?
Since when are Democrats Communists?
Oh yeah, is that the new label being touted, "Communist Democrat"?
If one is catering to the idealogy so as to become elected then all who broadcasts from the Communism Soapbox should be equally touted.
This will include Juan Garcia & Jimmy Rodriguez as well. There is truth to the allegations, ask Abel Cavada or better yet do a little research on the "Card Holder".
Now, having said that; there are some positives with the Populists Movement which does look more socialist than "Progressive". I tend to lean with the education and the healthcare aspects but the means are not justified by the ends.
How we get there is another discussion. Homer believed John Kelly and took the man for his word. Homero also believed in John Kelly and his direction at one time. I think the time will come when all will see Homer is revealing something to us we want to deny. A "Progressive Democrat" is not a Democrat.
WATT are you?
I mean, dont you wanna know if there are Communists in the Democratic Party?
By challenging the long time Democrats on the air Homer is sayin wake up people!
WATT he doesnt realize or maybe he does and it is just me that dont understand is there are Democrats who are wooed over by items like labor unions gaining influence and education solutions etc etc....
But those things all come with a price tag.
Not monetarily either.
I hear "Big Bill Haywood" announced every hour or so on Air America, was he a communist?
Posted on August 28, 2006 at 03:53:19 AM by JV
Why don't they say so? What do they want with South texans??
Re(1): I hear
Posted on August 28, 2006 at 09:20:17 AM by lamar23
its still america aint it. see what you are writing about. its still america people can be what they want to be.. just stay out of my back yard..
thanks to los chicano who were called commies at one time.
when a person stands up for his rights . and when when a person think they belong then we are called activites, un american , ..
Re(1): I hear
Posted on August 28, 2006 at 03:55:41 AM by CC Independent
Big Bill Haywood left to live in Russia and died there helping the Bolshevick revolution. Just Google his name, William "Big Bill" Haywood... in his eulogy, he is called "a true communist" by a commie magazine.
http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1156840046&user=defensornews
Monday, August 28, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Homero Villarreal
On today's Carranza Show a caller said that he had heard an annoument that tomorrow with Bob Jones, Homero was going to expose the communist in the Demorcatic party. IT IS TIME TO STOP HOMERO. NO SERIOUS DEMOCRAT SHOULD BUY ANY ADS from Homero. No matter what Joe Flores says about him.
posted by coastalbendoldmajor @ 9:03 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:46 PM, dannoynted1 said...
you are wrong oldmajor about homero,
all those "serious" democrats need to pay their bills they already owe homer!
and you know i know watt and who i am talking about!
there were committments made and not honored!
shall we stroll down memory lane or are "we the people" going to pay for services rendered?
or is this just a bunch of chisme as opposed to verdades?
At 12:08 AM, Jaime Kenedeño said...
Serious Democrat?posted by Jaime Kenedeño @ 10:10 PM 0 comments
WATT serious Democrat would welcome Communists into it's party?
Since when are Democrats Communists?
Oh yeah, is that the new label being touted, "Communist Democrat"?
If one is catering to the idealogy so as to become elected then all who broadcasts from the Communism Soapbox should be equally touted.
This will include Juan Garcia & Jimmy Rodriguez as well. There is truth to the allegations, ask Abel Cavada or better yet do a little research on the "Card Holder".
Now, having said that; there are some positives with the Populists Movement which does look more socialist than "Progressive". I tend to lean with the education and the healthcare aspects but the means are not justified by the ends.
How we get there is another discussion. Homer believed John Kelly and took the man for his word. Homero also believed in John Kelly and his direction at one time. I think the time will come when all will see Homer is revealing something to us we want to deny. A "Progressive Democrat" is not a Democrat.
WATT are you?
I mean, dont you wanna know if there are Communists in the Democratic Party?
By challenging the long time Democrats on the air Homer is sayin wake up people!
WATT he doesnt realize or maybe he does and it is just me that dont understand is there are Democrats who are wooed over by items like labor unions gaining influence and education solutions etc etc....
But those things all come with a price tag.
Not monetarily either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)