 |
| Former Two Term Mayor Pat Ahumada |
Pat Ahumada just wasted his own time and money and that of his supporters running for an office for which the City Charter clearly said he was unqualified.
404th District Court Judge Jose Longoria rejected Ahumada's TRO against Brownsville City Secretary Yolanda Galarza-Gomez, who declared Ahumada ineligible based on a May 2021 amendment to the City Charter that clearly states that "any time served prior to the approval of this amendment shall count toward the lifetime term limit."
That single sentence destroyed Ahumada's contention that his two terms of service didn't count since it took place before the amendment. The amendment's wording was clearly aimed at a former office holder using the loophole Ahumada tried to use.
Ahumada's aborted attempt to run for mayor may have been rooted in his stated position that, as mayor, he was the "quarterback," while the city commissioners were his "blocking lineman."
As arrogant as that statement is, it also would not accurately reflect the chemistry on the city commission were any of John Cowen, Jessica Tetreau or Jennifer Stanton the elected mayor sitting alongside Pat Ahumada as Commissioner At-Large or City Commissioner, District 2.
Does anyone have the least bit of doubt that Ahumada wouldn't dominate a City Commission with a novice mayor considering his experience and personality?
A fourth mayoral candidate, Erasmo Castro, is more microphone-dominant, but still, Ahumada would easily be able to make his points as a commissioner.
In representing himself legally in this matter, Ahumada reinforced the ancient adage that "He who will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client."
waisted?
ReplyDeletethere is a famous Associate Justice John Paul Stevens quote in an opinion about a fool for a client. The pro se won the case and the money. pro se's win all the time. This issue was as an attorney was he entitled to attorneys fees in addition to the damages he won? they said no. But the point is he represented himself and won the greater issue.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone has the money to pay an attorney. i am consulting on case wherein an inmate wants to be part of the suit his daughter is bring dragged into on no evidence. The Texas Supreme Court created a special rule for inmates in CPS cases. They must be sued and given a court appointed attorney. Gloria Rincones as made clear she will not follow the law. The Texas Supreme Court has made clear they will not follow their own rules. Are you saying this inmate about to make parole should not represent himself to protect his daughter. From the Texas Supreme Court web page. . http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/media/85132/rights-of-incarcerated-parents-cps-poster-final-2923-18-24-in.pdf
So I guess it is better since he will have to be pro se, his daughter must suffer. CPS finding to date is she allowed the children to see the abuse after her abuser knocked down the door and pull a screw drive on her. They specifically found other than this they have found no evidence of abuse or neglect by the mother. In principle representing you self is not smart. But when the choice is to be abused or represent yourself, you represent yourself.
Gloria Rincones will have many opponents in two years. he contempt for the law is well known at the court house.
Bobby WC