Thursday, April 9, 2020

Tarrant County Judge Bans Church, Violates Texas Governor Order, Should be held in Contempt

Yesterday afternoon, Robby Montoya broke news that the Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley had banned all in person church services. Specifically, Judge Whitley posted up on social media that he was not allowing in-person church services.
This ban of in person religious services is a DIRECT violation of Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Order which allows for religious services. I wrote an article recently about Governor Abbott’s order which declared religious services as essential and removed authority of county and local officials from restricting essential services more than what Governor Abbott had allowed during the CoronaVirus COVID-19 emergency.
This virus is a serious issue with drastic measures needed to be taken and are being taken, but the Constitution does not get suspended. The Constitution is above all laws and orders. The government cannot ban religious services. The government could highly recommend going online for religious services if possible, which the governor has. The government can order social distancing and sanitation measures if in person religious services are needed, which the governor has. There are many other measures that can be taken to safely practice religion, however, the government CANNOT ban religious services. The Governor understands that the Constitution must be upheld while at the same time measures be enacted to slow the spread of the CoronaVirus COVID-19.
Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley directly violated Greg Abbott’s order, and violates the Constitution, by banning all in person religious services, and he should be held in contempt.
Judge Whitley has no problem issuing orders and threatening jail time and fines if his order is violated; well politicians should be held to the same standard, right? Judge Whitley has violated the Governor’s order so he should be held to the same standard and face fines or jail time for violating the Governor’s order, right?
Who else is tired of politicians declaring a do as I say but not as I do attitude and issuing completely hypocritical and nonsensical orders? They declare you must follow their rules, but then they appear on the news for press releases flanked from left to right with their other political friends who want air time too. Well if you can do much of church online now or business meetings on video conference then why not do a press release online or on video conference? Why meet in person with your other press release TV personalities?
Some of these orders are just outright hypocritical and unreasonable. You shouldn’t go to see your pastor about a serious issue and keep a good distance from him while y’all talk in an open parking lot, but you can go to a liquor store for beer or to get plants for a garden at Lowes while standing in line 6 feet apart after having passed 50 people in the aisles and touched all the stuff that everyone else is touching and then touching the credit card pad that everyone else that day has touched. I must have forgotten the part in the Constitution about freedom to plant a flower but not freedom of religion. The virus must not be able to pass to other people if you are getting flowers at the store, only when you go talk to your pastor right? It is all ridiculous and hypocritical and nonsensical.
And another thing, just because one person loves church online doesn’t mean another person has the capability to do online services, or God forbid maybe the other person WANTs to or HAS TO go meet in person with their pastor for religious services. Just because one person is fine with church online, does not mean they should impose their beliefs on others who believe they need to go in person for religious services. If you are worried about catching the virus from a church goer, then practice what you preach and don’t get around anyone and avoid your church going friends for now while you chat it up with the crowd of unknown virus spreading people in line at the hardware store. If you stay in your home away from everyone, then you probably won’t get the virus. Much of this is self-responsibility, and ultimately, if you take care of yourself and stay away from people, then you will likely not get the virus. Bottom line, people cannot impose their desires on other people in violation of Constitutional rights. So please stop telling people not to go see their pastor while you hypocritically go run your non-essential errands.
Should we impose drastic sanitary measures and social distancing at churches like we are doing at supermarkets? Yes! But you cannot ban church just like you cannot ban people getting food at supermarkets. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating for people to meet in a large group and spread the virus, and I agree that people should stay away from each other right now to slow the spread, but I do not agree that we can toss out the Constitution and ban religious services that some people might greatly need and can do so safely with social distancing and sanitary practices. Ultimately, if you are worried about getting the virus from someone who went to see their pastor, then you can take matters into your own hands and stay away from everyone in order to take responsibility for lowering your chance of getting the virus. If I had, for instance, a child with a lung disease who was at greater risk, I would not tell people not to go to church, I would just stay in the house 24/7 to protect myself and my child until the virus passes, and not rely on making others do what I want them to do in violation of their constitutional rights. We have to be reasonable and tactical to fight the virus while still upholding the Constitution.

Breaking! Texas Governor PROHIBITS Counties & Cities from BANNING Religious Services during COVID-19

Texas Governor Greg Abbott today has just today, 3/31/2020, issued an Executive Order GA 14. This Executive Order suspends the rights of county judges and city mayors from prohibiting and banning religious services to the extent that it conflicts with what the governor has declared permissible in this coronavirus COVID-19 disaster. Specifically, the governor ordered that religious services are considered essential in the State of Texas, and therefore, cities and counties can no longer consider them non-essential to the extent of banning them, although common sense restrictions can still be in place locally to try to limit the spread of the coronavirus while not prohibiting religious services outright.
In recent weeks, there have been varying and sometimes hypocritical, unconstitutional, and conflicting orders from Texas county judges and Texas city mayors. One of the biggest points of controversy has been county judges and city mayors banning all religious services and threatening arrest of pastors. This certainly seems to violate the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of religion. These orders also seem completely hypocritical.
While there is no question that this virus is serious and steps should be taken to stop the spread of it, that does not mean the most basic constitutional rights can be violated such as banning churches. Religious services ARE essential to this great State of Texas and the United States of America. They are expressly protected by the Texas State and US Constitution.
More reasonable restrictions can be enforced in order to stop the spread. It was outrageous that people were being banned from going to see their pastor even just one on one in a parking lot, yet in these same counties which restricted religious services, you were still able to do a long list of many activities that do not even seem essential like going get beer, or in cases of essential activities, you could do them with limited restriction such as going into a crowded grocery store.
If going to a grocery store is essential, and you can go mingle with lots of people in a grocery store during these quarantines, then surely you should be able to also reasonably go to your church. Any essential activities, however, should be reasonably restricted to help stop the spread of this virus while still allowing people to eat and practice religion. Spacing requirements and no physical contact, sanitation upon entering, temperature taking upon entering, and outdoor services with a speaker system. Heck, you could probably get everyone to wear a hazmat suit. There are lots of ways to help stop the spread without violating the Constitution, and while allowing people to conduct essential activities.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott brought some common sense to the chaos today with this executive order, and he cut through the hypocrisy and contradicting orders; while at the same time, he is working to stop and slow the spread of the virus and protect the Constitution.

Monday, March 2, 2020

South Texas Republican Voters Not allowed to Vote Republican at Polling Places, Given Democrat Ballots Instead

Starr County, Texas, including the cities of Rio Grande City and Roma in south Texas along the Texas/Mexico border, is refusing to allow Republicans to vote at polling places, and even trying to give them a Democrat Ballot to vote with instead!
I was contacted by a Hispanic family trying to vote in Rio Grande City, TX late last week. Four different family members had gone to vote at their polling places. They unfortunately found that the county elections administration has not even supplied polling places with Republican ballots. The only place that someone can vote Republican is at the County Courthouse, instead of all the polling places where the County supplies democrat ballots for voting.
It gets worse. When these Republican voters went to vote at their polling place and asked for a Republican ballot, they were not told to go to the County Courthouse, but rather they were given a Democrat ballot and told just to vote with the Democrat ballot and the election officials told them all that Trump and everyone else will be on the November ballot.
This is shocking corruption and severe voting rights violations. This is nothing less than a scheme to alter or interfere with fair and free elections.
While it might have been a county party decision to not have voting anywhere other than the county courthouse, the problem is the Republican voters showing up to the polling places are NOT being told to go to the courthouse for a consolidated election to vote; they are just given a Democrat ballot and said just vote Democrat and wait for the November election to vote for Trump and other Republicans. That is wrong and illegal and something should be done about it
This 2020 Presidential election cycle has already been marred by election scandals. The Iowa Democrat Caucus saw the results being delayed and recounted due to irregularities and technology glitches. It is hard to imagine that in Texas, a county can suppress and interfere with voting like what has occurred this election in Starr County, TX.
South Texas has a long history of government and political corruption. One of my first articles ever written was a breaking story about a battle on the border near Roma, TX where gunfire and explosions were heard throughout the night. (VIDEO) Breaking News! Massive Battle Across Texas Mexico Border - Machine Guns and Explosions - Morning of April 21, 2011

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

False Charges against Liberty County Constable John Joslin Dismissed – DA Investigator Marcelo Molfino Fabricated Charge

The false charge of perjury against Liberty County, TX Constable John Joslin has been dismissed. Jefferson County District Attorney Bob Wortham dismissed the charges in order to keep his DA investigator Marcelo Molfino from having to take the stand and be exposed under oath for perjury and other criminal activity. Marcelo Molfino personally wrote an affidavit to have John Joslin sign with tricky wording with the intent to then personally charge Joslin with perjury by twisting around the wording in an affidavit that Marcelo Molfino had personally written. It was a bogus political charge from Jefferson County District Attorney Bob Wortham with Marcelo Molfino as the hitman. It is becoming their go to thing to do that If you can’t find something illegal you just get them to say something that you can twist to say I think they are lying and then charge them with perjury. That is what happened to John Joslin. President Donald trump recently spoke out against dirty cops. President Trump pointed out that there were dirty cops in the FBI who wrote about opposing Trump and then made false and illegal fabricated stories to attempt to prosecute him and get warrants. Marcelo Molfino is one of these kinds of dirty cops and he brings discredit to the very good and honorable officers who serve and protect us daily. Even his fellow officers say he is dirty because the agent at Texas DPS who investigated his crimes found him in violation of the law. Criminal Justice reform must be done to place safeguards to protect innocent people from false and malicious prosecutions.
Corruption runs deep in Bob Wortham’s Jefferson County District Attorney’s office, and much of the corruption surrounds DA investigator Marcelo Molfino. I too had been falsely charged by Bob Wortham and Marcelo Molfino. I wrote about this recently in this article: False Stalking and Perjury Charges against David Bellow DROPPED – Texas Rangers Investigating DA Bob Wortham for Corruption. I have never been even suspected of a crime in my life, and then I blew the whistle on Marcelo Molfino for multiple crimes. The state of Texas investigated and determined that Marcelo Molfino did violate the law. DA Bob Wortham refused to prosecute his own employee Marcelo Molfino and instead put Molfino directly on the task of trying to silence me with false charges. Molfino personally wrote the affidavit to have me charged for perjury, after I had turned him in for his own criminal activity, and after my disgruntled ex-wife had paid him $1500 cash (there was a history of Molfino accepting money from being and then charging their opponents or ex-spouses to get a leg up in child custody cases). I was also falsely charged with felony stalking for showing up many years ago to a parking lot to get and take home my crying one year old son from alone in a car where my ex wife (we were married at the time this happened) had left my precious one year old son in the car while she had an affair. The BOGUS felony stalking and perjury charges were completely dismissed and now the Texas Rangers have an investigation against the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office for abuse of office and official oppression. You won’t find that in the news though. You won’t see the news write any story about David Bellow false stalking and perjury charges being dismissed. You won’t even find any news articles about an official Texas Ranger investigation against the Jefferson County DA. The local media is silent on what should be front page news of Texas Ranger investigations against the DA and pay to prosecute schemes. This is a small box in southeast Texas and if you are the local news you just don’t go against the powerful district attorney. I guess I didn’t get that memo.
John Joslin had his charges completely dismissed. You won’t find that on the news either after they gladly wrote articles about his initial arrest. I will get the word out though. It is time that people know about the corruption of Jefferson County District Attorney and the many lives the attempt to ruin with false charges for cash or other political reasons.
John Joslin had gotten an attorney, former Judge Layne Walker, and they were fighting back and were going to expose the corruption of Marcelo Molfino. I was going to testify about the criminal activity of Molfino, and the Texas DPS agent who determined that Molfino violated the law was going to testify against Molfino and explain that Molfino did violate the law and knows he violated the law. Marcelo Molfino himself was even going to get on the stand and have to answer for his criminal activity and falsifications and lies. Then just like that, the big case against John Joslin gets dismissed. It was bogus from the start. Criminal Justice reform must be done to place safeguards to protect innocent people from false and malicious prosecutions.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Texas AG Office OPPOSES Due Process and Constitutional Right to Attorney in SCOTX Case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton does a great job of filing briefs and taking legal action in support of constitutional rights, and many on his staff are very good at defending the Constitution. Unfortunately, at least one attorney on his staff didn’t get the memo about supporting and defending the Constitution. In Supreme Court of Texas case 19-1101, Ken Paxton’s office is arguing AGAINST due process and AGAINST the constitutional right to an attorney in criminal proceedings. These are basic constitutional rights. These are rights that Republicans shouted from the rooftops that President Donald Trump was denied these rights in the impeachment proceedings against him in the US House of Representatives. They shouted from the rooftops that these are basic constitutional rights of any criminal proceeding. But yet when it comes to an actual criminal case in Texas with someone lower in status than the President, all of the sudden these basic rights don’t matter anymore? That is wrong. Ken Paxton should be alerted to this horrendous position that his staff has presented to the SCOTX. Ken Paxton likely does not even know about this situation with all the cases his office processes, but the Ken Paxton I have seen on Fox News defending the Constitution would not agree with his staff’s position to oppose the constitution. If Ken Paxton doesn’t reverse this position by his office, then it will be a black eye for his record of defending and protecting constitutional rights in Texas. This case, if it does not end in the Texas Supreme Court, has the potential to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Texas is better than this. Texas should stand up for basic constitutional rights, especially in criminal cases where someone’s life is on the line and they deserve to have an attorney and due process.
The Texas Supreme Court case number is 19-1101 IN RE JOSHUA LEROY JAROS. I wrote an article about this case and the #FreeJoshJaros situation not long ago when the petition first made its way to the Supreme Court of Texas. Now the Texas Attorney General’s office has filed their response, which to my surprise the staff attorney stuck to the story of rejecting the Constitutional right to an attorney and Due Process. This is something I do not believe Ken Paxton would agree with and I hope that he hears about this and takes action to ensure his office is upholding the Constitution and Due Process.
After the response from the Texas AG’s office, a response was made on behalf of #freeJoshJaros and a portion of this response to the state is below:
Comes now Joshua Jaros and would request that this Honorable Supreme Court order the temporary release of Joshua Jaros, as requested in the original Habeas Corpus petition to this Court, pending the final decision and judgement from this Court in this case. Now that the state has responded, it is clear that constitutional violations against Joshua Jaros have occurred which deprived him of Due Process. The state failed to even address the most serious constitutional issues in their response, and agreed or didn’t dispute many key facts and issues. For instance, it is agreed upon and undisputed by all parties that Joshua Jaros faced a criminal proceeding, he requested to be appointed an attorney because he cannot afford one, there was a previous undisputed affidavit of inability to pay by Joshua Jaros in the underlying case which Joshua pointed out, the court instead gave Joshua a form to fill out that did not allow for a listing of expenses, the request for indigency was never disputed by the state before the Judge determined Joshua is not indigent, the Judge never asked for more information nor allowed Joshua to provide any information to explain his expenses and his inability to afford an attorney other than the insufficient form he was given to fill out. The court found Joshua non indigent and denied him an attorney and immediately proceeded with the criminal trial against Joshua Jaros instead of giving Joshua Jaros adequate time to find an attorney now that the Judge had just denied Joshua a court appointed attorney.
None of the above facts are disputed by any party. The dispute is whether or not the Texas and US Constitution and Due Process requires that Joshua Jaros, who was facing a criminal trial with a state attorney against him, have an adequate review of his actual ability to afford an attorney which would include a review of his necessary expenses in order to be able to make a reasonable determination of ability to afford an attorney before being denied a court appointed attorney, and then given time to find an attorney after being denied a court appointed one. The State’s position is that yes Joshua was denied a review of his expenses and denied a review of his full situation regarding ability to afford an attorney, but its ok because he doesn’t need a full review because the law doesn’t require it. The State is wrong. The law does require it as the law does require an indigency determination and an indigency determination cannot reasonably be determined without having looked at both income and expenses. However, it is true that the law, although reasonably implied, does not specifically state the process or basic guidelines of determining indigency in this case must include reviewing expenses. The state relies on the idea that the law doesn’t say it must be done so it is ok if it isn’t done. What the state fails to consider or respond to is that the Constitution is above the law. The Constitution and Due Process require that Joshua Jaros have a full and reasonable examination of his actual ability to afford an attorney, which would include reviewing expenses, before being denied the fundamental constitutional right to a court appointed attorney, or given time to find an attorney if a reasonable and adequate determination has been made denying him an appointed attorney.
The Constitution and Due Process requires this, Joshua Jaros was denied this, and therefore Joshua Jaros must be released as his rights were clearly violated. If the state’s argument is right that the law allows it, then the law must be struck down as unconstitutional because it is at odds with the constitution and due process. This is not just about Joshua Jaros. This case is about every Texan who might face a criminal prosecution and who cannot afford an attorney. There must be a more constitutional standard for which Judges must go by when determining who gets a court appointed attorney. It is unconstitutional for every judge to have a different standard, or no standard at all, which allows for them to just check a box of non-indigent and deny constitutional rights to attorneys without having been required to do a reasonable and thorough examination of the defendant’s expenses and actual ability to afford an attorney.

Friday, January 24, 2020

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Pro-Life Case – Motion to Reconsider Filed

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Pro-Life Case – Motion to Reconsider Filed

The Supreme Court of Texas declined to take up case 19-0325, but there is a pending motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court of Texas is filled with great people who I am certain would care about the issues involved in this case, but more likely than not, the Supreme Court of Texas simply didn’t directly get told in the filings that the issue at hand involved life and access to justice as the technical legal arguments do not outright say this, and the Court gets a lot of cases and cannot take up them all. That is why a motion to reconsider the case has been filed with the SCOTX and the motion to reconsider specifically points out the importance of this case and for unborn baby life and pregnant women and access to justice.
This case has some pretty strong implications about the rights of unborn baby life and medical expenses and access to justice. Effectively, the lower court and 9th Court of Appeals has determined that unborn baby and pregnant mother medical expenses are not necessary and must be paid after court costs in a case. This ruling was a huge strike against women and babies and access to justice in general. The SCOTX not taking up the case effectively approves of and allows to stay in place the lower rulings which have wide-reaching implications.
The text of the Motion to Reconsider is here below:
Unborn Baby Expenses should NOT come after court costs and this Supreme Court should NOT vote AGAINST life. Access to Justice is DENIED if lower courts can simply refuse to consider expenses before determining ability to afford court costs.
Comes now Appellant and request this Honorable Supreme Court of Texas to reconsider appellant’s Petition for Review.
I request this court to reconsider their decision not to take up a petition for review of the above referenced cause. On the face of the appeal, the issues might not seem important enough for this Supreme Court to take up, even with apparent flaws or issues of the underling orders. I understand there are a lot of cases and the SCOTX can only take up a small percentage of them, however, I would like to express to this court that the underlying issues are much more important than they appear at first glance.
First, A denial of the Supreme Court’s review of this case will be a major anti-life statement. The 9th Court of Appeals decided that medical expenses of an unborn baby and pregnant mother are NOT valid expenses that should be paid before having to pay court costs of an appeal. Specifically, I had filed motion of material change in financial circumstances in regards to paying the large amount of court costs of an appeal. The change in circumstance was due to my wife becoming pregnant and there being new and vital medical expenses for the life of my unborn son and the health of my pregnant wife. The 9th Court of Appeals denied this motion and then dismissed the appeal stating that there had been NO reasonable reason for not being able to pay court costs. The 9th Court of Appeals effectively and literally determined that the life and health of an unborn baby and pregnant mother are NOT worth of consideration, and NOT reasonable or necessary to pay before having to pay appeals court costs. Appeals court costs must come first before medical expenses for the life and health of a baby is the statement and decision made by the 9th Court of Appeals. If this Supreme Court of Texas refuses to take up this petition for review, then this court is effectively agreeing with and upholding the radically wrong anti-life decision by the 9th Court of Appeals. Clearly the issues of this case are not simply about a small court costs disagreement, but rather it is about a much bigger and more important issues which will send an anti-life message across Texas if not reviewed by this Honorable Supreme Court.
Second, a denial of the Supreme Court’s review of this case will be a major blow to Access to Justice (which this Court has pushed hard recently to reform to allow access), and it would send a statement to Texas that Supreme Court guidelines for determining ability to afford costs are irrelevant and allow for lower court to use different and contradictory and vague and unconstitutional guidelines to determine inability to pay for access to courts and therefore violates due process. Specifically, in this instant case, the lower court did not follow the set guidelines and rules regarding affidavits of inability to afford costs. The biggest flaw is that the lower court did not even consider any personal or business expenses or obligations before determining ability to afford costs. This completely contradicts the Texas Supreme Court having rewritten indigency rules to require examination of ability to afford, not just ability to pay. Income of any amount cannot alone be examined before determining ability to afford costs without having first having examined expenses to or other obligations to determine what portion of income is even available to use after necessary expenses to live. In this instant case, the lower court NEVER examined ANY expenses or obligations and therefore could never have determined my ability to afford costs at that time. The lower court did not even examine my personal bank account or current personal income. The lower court only examined the money of a small business corporation that I had an ownership interest in. The court saw a few thousand dollars in the company account at the end of each month and said hey I should just raid the company account and get that money to pay my personal court costs because I am able to access the company bank account. Had the trial court actually followed indigency and ability to afford guidelines, the trial court would have seen that any payments I had gotten from the company were a year before the indigency hearing and and had not been received in nearly a year and the company had no positive value to me and was a young company owned by financing and another business who financed the start of the company and therefore was not even a positive asset to add as current income or asset positive value on an ability to afford cost form. Me simply being able to access the company bank account does not mean that the company money is mine to take even if I had gotten payments previously when the company had the ability to pay. The other owner of the company actually has a court order from a different court which PROHIBITS me from taking company money, which he has a majority interest in and which are for paying company expenses, and using it for my personal court costs. I would actually be violating a court order if I did take company money for personal expenses. But even if the court did determine I could just raid the company account, The court was required to, but never examined any expenses or obligations because if it had it would have found that the little money left over in the business account was to pay for the next week payroll of the employees of the small business or the taxes every three months or the debt payment to the companies and financial institutions that effectively owned the company through financing agreements. The lower court and opposing attorney Scott Browne and 9th Court of Appeals would have me commit fraud or other serious crimes or unethical behavior by taking company money that belonged to employee pay or belonged to the customer who gave that money to the business to but them a new heater. Surely this honorable Supreme Court would not agree with me resorting to stealing from employee paychecks or committing fraud by taking money from the company account that is there to pay for a customer parts? And that is the massive issue with this case. The issue is that the lower court and even the appeals court have simply ignored the SCOTX guidelines for determining ability to afford costs. This lower court and the 9th Court of Appeals determination to ignore necessary expenses violates due process and the Constitution because true ability to afford costs to access the courts cannot be determined without having examined both income AND expenses. What is the point of this SCOTX creating ruled for examining ability to afford costs to allow for access to justice if the lower courts and the appeals court can simply ignore these guidelines and declare someone able to pay costs without having ever determined expenses and ability to actually use income. This is an issue that is widespread and greatly impacts other Texans and deprives many other people of the ability to access courts if there are no enforceable standards of determining indigency and examining expenses before making a determination about ability to afford costs. In fact, this Supreme Court of Texas has a different case, a habeas corpus case, before it right now involving a young father Joshua Jaros who was jailed without having a right to be represented by an attorney. That case before the SCOTX is cause 19-1101 and this court has yet to rule on that case. In that case, Joshua declared his inability to afford an attorney and the trial court denied him a court appointed attorney without having considered his expenses and ability to afford an attorney. The 9th Court of Appeals was again the appeals court in this case and the 9th Court of appeals declared that expenses and actual ability to afford costs don’t ever have to be considered. Interestingly though, the 9th Court of appeals, in their upholding that the trial court did not need to examine expenses for determining indigency for a court ordered attorney, specifically acknowledged caselaw regarding the need to examine expenses for ability to pay court costs. The 9th court of appeals has contradicted themselves by denying the need to examine expenses in my inability to afford court costs, while acknowledging in Joshua’s case that expenses do need to be considered for court costs and ability to afford them. Clearly there is a pattern of different people being denied due process and being denied constitutional rights due to Texas trial courts and specifically the 9th Court of appeals determining and upholding this flawed notion that it is ok to determine that someone can pay for court costs or for an attorney and can be denied these rights to access justice and rights to a court appointed attorney by simply declaring they can pay without ever having actually examined their ability to afford and without ever having considered expenses and obligations. The SCOTX must take up this issue and provide clarification and enforcement of guidelines for determining ability to afford and access to justice, instead of the lower courts and the appeals court having different and even contradictory guidelines to determine ability to afford which allows for ignoring expenses and violated due process.
I pray that this honorable Supreme Court of Texas reconsider their denial to take up my petition for review of the above referenced case. I pray this court takes up my petition for review due to the important and far reaching issues and implications of the underlying case regarding life and access to justice and guidelines for inability to afford determinations

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Texas Supreme Court to Rule on #FreeJoshJaros - Constitutional Rights to Attorney at Stake

I recently helped file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the egregious constitutional violations of Judge Patrice McDonald in Montgomery County, Texas. Hopefully the SCOTX will stand up for the Constitution and Free Joshua Jaros. Specifically, Judge McDonald refused to allow Joshua Jaros to have an attorney in a criminal proceeding, and then threw him in jail for a debt that he could not afford and without the chance to have an attorney to represent him and present his case as the Constitution requires.

The Joshua Jaros Habeas Corpus petition Supreme Court case number is 19-1101 IN RE JOSHUA LEROY JAROS. 

If the name Judge Patrice McDonald sounds familiar, it is because she has been in the headlines recently by Investigative Reporter Wayne Dolcefino. Wayne has been exposing Judge McDonald after she threatened to throw a man in jail for not paying for an attorney and for spousal support for his bigamist ex in a divorce proceeding.

The man, Mark Athans, filed for divorce after he found out his wife of 5 months was already married. The woman was a fraudster and charged with Felony Bigamy. The marriage between Mark and woman was voided in the state in which it occurred. That didn’t stop Judge McDonald though who proceeded with the divorce case and refused to consider that there is no marriage due to the fraud and felony behavior of Mark’s ex, and even was going to jail the victim Mark if he did not pay his con artist ex’s attorney fees.

The latest victim of Judge McDonald is Joshua Jaros, who now sits in jail after having his Constitutional rights tossed out the window. The situation with Josh Jaros reveals a bigger issue with the horrible family law system in Texas in which good parents, mostly fathers, get separated from their children which causes a ripple effect of harm to the children and society as a whole. Reducing incentive for parents to fight over children should be a priority in Texas. Equal Shared Parenting laws overwhelmingly and on a bi partisan basis passed out of the Texas House this past session but never made it to the floor. Children should be able to have access and love from both fit parents, and parents should not have incentive to fight with their children’s lives and instead have to practice equal shared parenting. This would reduce the factual devastating effects on children that this fighting and parental alienation causes because parents will be forced to share costs and parenting instead of parents using their children as pawns to get a little more parenting time to hurt their ex or to be able to get more child support or be awarded legal fees for their lawyers.

Josh Jaros was jailed in Montgomery County Texas after he received no jury trial and after he was denied an attorney which is a basic constitutional right and is even Texas Law. There were other issues as well such as fatal flaws in the notice and pleadings. Josh Jaros is a great father who supports and takes care of his kids but could not pay the several hundred dollars a month to his ex-wife each month after Josh already pays to take care of his kids half the time and provides a roof over their head and food for them to eat etc. Both parents should always be able to equally be with their children if there is no threat of harm or violence etc, and supporting children in Texas means both parents taking care of the children equally. Texas needs to pass equal shared parenting laws so that children get to have both of their parents in their lives, and it would exponentially cut down on the fighting and tearing apart and bankrupting of families in the court system of fit parent had no choice but to share their child equally instead of being able to go to court and fight for more time or more money. #FreeJoshJaros

The Texas and US Constitutions require that any criminal defendant has a right to an attorney and even the right to have one appointed for them if they are unable to afford one. Seems pretty straight forward right? Unfortunately, the Court systems in Texas (and in the Nation) do not always follow the Constitution and are in need of serious reform. The Constitutional rights we all hold dear frequently get tossed out the window in courtrooms where judges can virtually do whatever they want with immunity. There are many good and great Judges who follow the law and the Constitution, but there are also Judges who do not. There is very little oversight when clear laws and rules are violated by judges. There is even less method of reprimanding a Judge, and even less of an adequate way to reverse a Judge who clearly violates the law or the Constitution. If the Law or the Constitution says a Judge has to do something specific, and the judge simply refuses, then what recourse does someone have? Just because the law says it MUST be done does not mean a judge has to follow it because there is NO reason for them to. They won’t be disciplined. They MIGHT be overturned if you can get an appeals court to take interest in the case but that could take years on appeal. Mandamus is the appropriate form of demanding that a Judge follow the law or constitution when it is clear they have not during the pendency of a case, but mandamus is rarely taken up even if the judge is completely wrong because the appeals court does not have to take them up and can just say they don’t have time to rule on the mandamus. Texas must create a better system of immediate and mandatory review when there is a question of whether or not a judge in a case is not following a clear and mandatory law or rule that must be followed. People’s lives and time and money should not have to wait for years of appeals to overturn a bad judge when there is a clear violation of law or rule by a judge. The clear violation by a judge should be resolved quickly so the underlying case moves forward and gets resolved in a fair and unbiased manner. Judges should be more strictly required to follow mandatory laws and procedures or face real consequences. As it stands now, Judges have no incentive to actually follow mandatory requirements if they know they will not get in trouble.

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Protests/Boycotts for George Lopez show 1/10/20 after Tweet offering to Assassinate President Trump

Rallies, Boycotts and Protests are just part of the reaction waiting for George Lopez when he comes to Beaumont, TX tomorrow 1/10/2020. This is in response to George Lopez having tweeted that he would assassinate President Trump for half the bounty that Iran was offering. Also, does the Constitution protect this kind of speech? Yes and No.
Following President Trump’s military operation to take out Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, Comedian/Actor George Lopez responded on twitter in reference to the bounty put on United States of America President Donald J. Trump. The response from George Lopez was “We’ll do it for half.” see picture of tweet below
George Lopez promoting, agreeing and accepting an offer to kill the President of the United States is appalling and possibly criminal, and the backlash to George Lopez was swift. In fact, as fate would have it, George Lopez has a show this Friday night right here in southeast Texas. In the past couple of days, local news feeds have been flooded with local businesses and residents calling for a boycott of the show. Screenshots of all of these reactions and planned rallies and boycotts are posted below. One local businessman Rustin Guarnere posted on facebook that he is offering $2000 off any new home plus $2500 in furniture for anyone buying a new home who brings him their George Lopez ticket. Judy Nichols, the chair of the Republican Party of Jefferson County Texas, released a statement responding to the George Lopez event. She is also organizing a rally to support President Trump just outside the George Lopez event. Another local businesswoman, MrsMobile Home Magan, posted on facebook for anyone who bought a home from her and gives her their tickets then she will give them double what they paid for the ticket so she can burn the ticket. Another local resident posted screenshots of the seats available and it shows there are more seats available now than 3 days ago due to people apparently canceling of returning their tickets. Screenshots of local news coverage of the reactions and planned protests are also attached below.
I am a big advocate of the Constitution, including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. That only protects from government restriction of speech. That does not mean there will not be consequences for speech such as rallies or boycotts form people who have differing opinions and want to express their contrary beliefs. The First Amendment should protect anyone from criminal prosecution as well for freedom of speech. There is a limit though as the First Amendment does not protect against some kinds of threats. While studying at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, I had a constitutional law class as part of my political science degree course load. The professor made an example for us of what is protected and what is not. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional for George Lopez to say someone should take up the bounty. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional for George Lopez to say someone should kill the president. He would not be specifically directing anyone to go kill the president and he isn’t saying he is going to go do it himself as a specific and direct threat. He is expressing a horrible opinion that he will get backlash or even civil lawsuits for, but is non the less constitutional as anyone in America has a right to express their opinions without government restriction saying they cannot. However, George Lopez seems to have gone beyond saying someone should take up the bounty against President Trump. George Lopez specifically stated he would take up the bounty and only wants half the money. That certainly on its face appears to be a specific threat and agreement to kill the president for a price. George Lopez at the very least should get questioned and investigated to ensure there is no threat from him, and he might should be charged as well. I am a big fan of criminal justice reform and a big supporter of the constitution. We have a lot or problems with unconstitutional laws and prosecutorial misconduct and over regulation. I’m not saying he should be thrown in jail and throw away the key, and I even believe that many laws restricting speech are unconstitutional as everyone has a right to say whatever opinion they want. But George Lopez might have crossed that line of opinion by stating that he was taking up a bounty to go through with an assassination of the President. At minimum, his speech does have non-governmental consequences which are now being seen right here in southeast Texas.

Monday, December 9, 2019

Texas Supreme Court to Decide if an Unborn Baby Should get Medical Care Before Paying Court Costs, and if a New Pregnancy is a Change in Circumstances re: Access to Justice

Texas Supreme Court to Decide if an Unborn Baby Should get Medical Care Before Paying Court Costs, and if a New Pregnancy is a Change in Circumstances re: Access to Justice

The Supreme Court of Texas has a case before them right now, Case 19-0325, which if they deny the petition, the Texas Supreme Court will have effectively agreed or let stand a ruling by the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals that a pregnancy is NOT a change in financial circumstances. Even worse, if the Texas Supreme Court denies this case, then it will be agreeing or letting stand an absurd determination that the health and health expenses of an unborn baby are not important nor necessary, and that the courts should require unborn babies to be denied medical care so that court costs can first be paid in order to access the justice system and file an appeal. It would also muddy the waters regarding access to justice and standards for inability to afford costs that the SCOTX has pushed to try to clear up in recent years.

This case before the SCOTX is very important for multiple reasons. The first reason is pretty obvious. It is absolutely absurd that an appeals court in Texas has determined that a pregnancy is not a material or substantial change, and that medical expenses during a pregnancy are NOT IMPORTANT and instead the courts should get their access to justice fees paid first before the medical needs of an unborn child can be paid for or risk being denied equal access to courts and justice.

The second reason this case is important is because it involves access to Justice. The Supreme Court of Texas has spent considerable time and effort in recent years taking a stand and fighting FOR access to justice, which is a fundamental constitutional right. Particularly, the SCOTX has created rules and developed case law through rulings aimed at forcing courts to allow people the right and opportunity to access courts and access justice even if they are unable to afford court costs. This is a big shift, as previously the standard was ability to pay, not ability to afford. The SCOTX realized that just because someone has $10 in their account that doesn’t mean the $10 is available to spend on court costs if, for instance, food and housing needs to be paid first. Therefore, the standard shifted to ability to afford, which required courts to actually examine someone’s income AND expenses before determining if someone can actually afford court costs after necessary expenses. Unfortunately, many lower courts still haven’t come on board with the new rules regarding access to justice or they are simply openly defying the guidance from the SCOTX. This case is a prime example of complete disregard for access to justice and the standards for determining ability to afford that have been set forth by the SCOTX.

So, what exactly is this current case before the Supreme Court of Texas? Here is what happened. An appeal was made to the 9th Court of Appeals in Beaumont, TX (Jefferson County). An affidavit of inability to pay court costs was included so that the appeal could move forward even though there was an inability to afford the thousands of dollars in court costs to file an appeal of the trial court ruling. The appeals court kicked the ability to afford decision to the trial court. The trial court, without ever examining or even considering necessary expenses, determined that there is an ability to afford the thousands in court costs. This determination was challenged in the appeals court because, based on the rules and caselaw and plain common sense, there cannot be a determination regarding ability to afford without having looked at expenses and making factual determinations regarding both income and expenses. Additionally, since the appeal was filed there was a new pregnancy with new unborn baby medical expenses that must be considered and paid first before court costs. The Ninth Court of Appeals then ruled that the trial court did not need to examine expenses or that the appeals court didn’t care if the trial court didn’t examine expenses before making a determination on ability to afford court costs. Additionally, the Ninth Court of Appeals rejected a motion regarding a change in financial circumstances due to a new pregnancy and went on to specifically state in their final order to pay court costs that there had not been any material change in circumstances presented that warranted review, which effectively declared a new pregnancy as not an important change to consider. Even worse, it deems unborn child medical expenses as not worth examining and the unborn child expenses should come second to paying court costs. The Ninth Court of Appeals then went on to dismiss the proceeding without ever reviewing the merits of the case due to the thousands of dollars in access to justice court fees not having been paid despite the courts never having actually reviewed ability to pay, and after having determined that court fees come first before necessary unborn baby health expenses.

So that is what leads us to this current case before the Supreme Court of Texas. This is a very important case that everyone should keep an eye on. If the Supreme Court of Texas does not take up this case, then the SCOTX will be effectively agreeing and allowing to stand the lower court and appeals court’s absurd and vague determinations regarding everything from pregnancy necessary expenses to access to justice rights. A denial of this petition for review would be completely contrary to the recent SCOTX push for access to justice, and would set the cause back by allowing lower courts to deny access to justice in spite of the SCOTX rules and constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Texas has done a fabulous job of pushing for access to justice and we can only hope that the SCOTX will continue to push for access to justice by taking up this case to review the serious issues that undercut the SCOTX’s own rules and guidance on the issue.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

False Stalking and Perjury Charges against David Bellow DROPPED – Texas Rangers Investigating DA Bob Wortham for Corruption and Official Oppression

False Stalking and Perjury Charges against David Bellow DROPPED – Texas Rangers Investigating DA Bob Wortham for Corruption and Official Oppression

My name is David Bellow and I have been vindicated and am telling my story of corruption in Jefferson County, Texas. I am happy to announce that the horrible, politically motivated false charges against me of Stalking and Perjury have been completely dismissed (Click for Dismissal Orders Here: Perjury, Stalking), and now the Texas Rangers have opened an official criminal investigation against Jefferson County and Corrupt District Attorney Bob Wortham for abuse of office and official oppression against me with District Attorney Robert Trapp being appointed attorney Pro Tem as Special Prosecutor (Click Here for Texas Ranger Report of Investigation obtained through an Open Records Request).

I used to be very active in the political world, standing up for what I believe is right and fighting to expose corruption. I frequently blogged and wrote articles and got involved in the political process, even being elected as a political party official. Back in 2014, my now ex-wife started leaving my one-year old son in cars in parking lots while she had an affair. I was told of the affair and of my son being left in cars and I did what any parent would do and I went to that parking lot and got my crying and hyperventilating one year old son from that abandoned car where he was left alone. I went home with my son and then tried to set up marriage counseling as a reasonable non-violent person would do. We went to what we thought was Christian Counseling at First Baptist Church Beaumont where Texas Licensed Counselor (and pastor) Larry Walker’s not so Christian advice was to suggest divorce instead of reconciliation attempts, and he even suggested a divorce lawyer on standby in the church. That is unfortunately the sad reality of many churches who are falling away from faith and family values. This is important though because it is the first instance where the State of Texas opened an investigation into what would be a long excruciating story of corruption in Jefferson County. The state began investigating the professional counselor license of Larry Walker for such things as not reporting suspected Child abuse or neglect as required by law after hearing of my son being left in cars in parking lots. During the divorce and child custody proceedings that followed, there were no accusations against me. I was a good father involved in my son’s life and I was never accused of being threating or abusive, and in fact, my ex-wife signed multiple under oath sworn statements stating that I had never committed family violence and she was only seeking a no-fault divorce. However, she didn’t want our son to have me as a father, which is similar in many custody battles in which people allow hate and bitterness for another person to rip children from loving mothers or fathers whom the children need and deserve equally, which has created the greatest societal crisis of our time with the effects of single family homes and children without fathers being well documented and catastrophic for the children involved and for society as a whole (Click here for government statistics: I, however, intended to fight for and protect my son and be in his life as his father. In fact, I had the upper hand in the custody case as my ex-wife had admitted in sworn testimony to being violent towards me and leaving our son in cars while she had affairs. That is when her attorney (who was also the attorney for the church where the counselor was under investigation) started to pull out some tricks against me to delay justice. For instance, If you try to sanction the other side with petty complaints such as turning over discovery items a day late, then you can wear down and drag out custody litigation cause the other side to run out of money, then you win. So that is what her attorney tried to do. They even hired a “private investigator”, Marcelo Molfino.


They hired Marcelo Molfino to download my cell phones and allege that not all the data was turned over so that they could try to get all evidence tossed out in the case on a technicality. My side hired our own, more reputable private digital forensics, Red Forensics, from out of town who determined that not only was the report and data from Molfino false and misleading, but it also apeared as though Marcelo Molfino was practicing as a private investigator without a license. So I blew the whistle on Marcelo Molfino with the State of Texas, and the Texas DPS determined that Marcelo Molfino was practicing without a license which is a Class A Misdemeanor. And that is where my real troubles began. You see, Marcelo Molfino was the lead Criminal Investigator for Jefferson County District Attorney Bob Wortham. Not only did I uncover the illegal activity of Marcelo Molfino in my case, I then discovered many other instances where Molfino was violating the law and using his position in the DA office to oppress people. Through Open Records Requests, I even discovered false contradicting statements on government documents, and uncovered many instances where he would get paid by people in the “private civil arena” and then turn around and try to get people charged criminally under his criminal prosecution hat against the people he was paid privately to oppose. The Texas DPS asked the Jefferson County DA if he would be filing charges against Molfino, and the DA said no. The DA decides who to protect and who to prosecute. After protecting his investigator Molfino from criminal charges that I blew the whistle on, the DA Bob Wortham then put Marcelo Molfino on a mission to personally bring false charges against me using the power of his prosecution office. Can anyone say clear conflict of interest? This was done for 2 reasons. This persecution against me was done in retaliation against me for my whistleblower complaint to silence me and discredit my complaints against Marcelo Molfino, and it was also done because, as would come out in criminal trial testimony, my ex wife, at the direction of her attorney, paid Marcelo Molfino at least $1500 cash shortly before Molfino brought false charges against me. She even went to the Jefferson County Courthouse government building to meet Marcelo Molfino as part of this “private exchange” of services, according to trial transcripts.

After nearly 2 years of a custody battle, the money ran out for me to fight and I offered my ex-wife 50/50 custody of our son, which she accepted. Her acceptance was just another trick though as her acceptance was only so she could get the custody case against her out of the way so that she could transfer the proceedings to Jefferson County to do an immediate modification custody suit to change the child custody order to try to take my son from me. She brought the case to Judge Larry Thorne, who her attorney had made a rare large donation to. Judge Larry Thorne would later be found by the State of Texas as having accepted tend of thousands of illegal contributions from attorneys and fined nearly $40,000 (Click Here to see Order against Judge Larry Thorne). Not surprisingly, the local DA Bob Wortham who holds the power to prosecute, did not prosecute judge Larry Thorne for the felony violations the state found him to have violated.

So back to the custody case, only a month after accepting the final 50/50 custody agreement order which I hoped would bring stability to my son’s life, and after years of a bitter divorce case in which she swore against any allegations of family violence from me,  my ex-wife simply then went to Jefferson County Investigator Marcelo Molfino and paid him cash money. She then filed criminal complaints alleging that, three years earlier, even before the divorce started, she felt “alarmed” when I, while we were married, went to a parking lot to get my son from an abandoned car. So she filed felony “stalking family violence” charges against me as her basis of trying to change the agreed custody order with the new Judge Larry Thorne. The DA’s office of course fast tracked a prosecution against me with Marcelo Molfino at the helm. Molfino was under investigation at the time as a result of my complaint BEFORE he brought retaliatory charges against me. Even worse, Molfino was paid cash money by my ex. Literally the prosecutors office was taking money “bribes” to prosecute, and they put Molfino directly on the case to silence me and discredit my legitimate complaints against him which were validated by the state of Texas. That wasn’t enough to silence me and I kept fighting and I kept investigating, so then Molfino personally wrote out an affidavit alleging I am a liar and charged me with felony perjury. What better way to discredit your accuser than to bring false perjury charges against him so you can just say don’t believe him he is charged with perjury. At one point the DA wanting a ONE MILLION dollar bond or NO BOND. I guess the only way to keep me from talking to the Texas State investigators was to try to put me, a non violent political adversary, in permanent confinement with bond higher than an alleged murderer.

I fought and I exposed and finally one by one the charges went away. Felony Stalking case dismissed. Felony Perjury case dismissed. I have never been convicted and have never pled guilty and never been found guilty. I have been vindicated with all criminal cases now gone away. Of course you won’t find word of my cases dismissed in the news like I was in the news when the DA’s office sent word to the news stations of my initial arrests so they could parade my mugshot though the news and all but convict me before a trial.

This story I bring to light only touches the surface of the roller coaster ride I have experienced, and barely addresses all the instances of criminal activity and corruption I uncovered involving the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. There have been many less fortunate than me who might have pled guilty just to cut a deal to get out of the false prosecution, or maybe they were found guilty based off of fabricated evidence. I will continue to fight to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights that everyone should enjoy by fighting and exposing corruption.

The big news to top off my vindication from the false prosecution by Jefferson County, is that the Texas Rangers have officially and formally opened a criminal investigation against Jefferson County for abuse of office and official oppression against me. Yes, the Jefferson County Criminal District Attorney Bob Wortham and his office are under official criminal investigation by the Texas Rangers with a special prosecutor even having been appointed from another county.

So I am back! I got to settle down for a bit and I have a beautiful wife, Denise, son and stepson, and baby boy arriving next month! I will be writing and blogging more about politics I am passionate about and about political news, with a focus on the broken family court system that needs drastic reform to save and stabilize children and society, as well as a focus on public corruption and criminal justice which need drastic reforms to prevent innocent people from going to jail due to faulty or fabricated evidence and a lack of Constitutional protections and due process,  and due to even intentional false prosecutions that are rampant and allowed to happen.