Ladies & Gentlemen,...... I present TLR
Posted on December 25, 2005 at 10:39:26 PM by Jaime Kenedeño

Recipient Office Status Party State Amount Date
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $65,956 10/22/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $60,000 10/08/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $50,000 10/08/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $45,000 10/15/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $42,291 10/08/2004
ROSE, PATRICK M HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $40,000 10/12/2004
OPIELA, ERIC HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $40,000 10/18/2004
WITT, ANN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $40,000 09/23/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $39,229 10/12/2004
WITT, ANN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $32,500 10/12/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $32,180 10/19/2004
RITTER, ALLAN B HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $30,000 02/12/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $26,000 10/08/2004
BAXTER, TODD HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 09/21/2004
ROSE, PATRICK M HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $25,000 09/08/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 09/23/2004
MARTINEZ, NELDA HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $25,000 03/25/2004
MARTINEZ, NELDA HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $25,000 03/22/2004
OPIELA, ERIC HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 10/04/2004
HAMILTON, MIKE TUFFY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 10/15/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 10/20/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $25,000 09/23/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $24,000 10/08/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $24,000 10/18/2004
MARTINEZ, NELDA HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $23,385 04/07/2004
RITTER, ALLAN B HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $20,000 01/16/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $20,000 10/13/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $17,696 10/30/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $17,547 10/18/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $17,547 10/13/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $17,547 10/27/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $16,895 10/13/2004
BAXTER, TODD HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $15,000 10/27/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $14,996 10/26/2004
ALLEN, RAY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $14,500 10/12/2004
ALLEN, RAY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $14,500 10/12/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $13,746 10/18/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $12,000 10/18/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 09/23/2004
FARABEE, DAVID HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 09/23/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 10/28/2004
GUTIERREZ, ROBERTO HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 02/09/2004
HAMILTON, MIKE TUFFY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 09/21/2004
FARABEE, DAVID HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 10/21/2004
CAPELO, JAIME HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 12/19/2003
ROSE, PATRICK M HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 09/03/2003
BAXTER, TODD HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 10/08/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 10/11/2004
COOK, ROBBY HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $10,000 10/12/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 10/22/2004
Recipient Office Status Party State Amount Date
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 10/29/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $10,000 09/21/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $9,410 10/04/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $9,410 10/04/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $9,410 10/04/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $9,400 07/26/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $9,158 10/28/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $8,776 10/12/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $8,050 09/23/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $7,565 10/26/2004
HAMILTON, MIKE TUFFY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $7,500 09/21/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $7,500 09/17/2004
MILLER, SID HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $7,500 09/21/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $7,257 10/13/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $7,145 10/26/2004
NIXON, JOE HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $7,014 11/24/2003
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $6,815 10/27/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $6,191 10/12/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $6,010 11/02/2004
HEFLIN, TALMADGE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,900 09/17/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,849 11/22/2004
RITTER, ALLAN B HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $5,525 03/04/2004
ALLEN, RAY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,500 09/17/2004
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,500 07/09/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,500 07/09/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,377 10/27/2004
HARRIS, CHRIS SENATE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 03/09/2004
ALLEN, RAY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/28/2004
SELIGER, KEL SENATE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 12/10/2004
JANEK, KYLE SENATE Did Not Run REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/21/2003
ARNOLD, TERRY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/15/2004
LUCIO JR, EDDIE SENATE Won DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 06/22/2004
ABBOTT, GREG ATTORNEY GENERAL Did Not Run REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 12/17/2003
COOK, ROBBY HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 01/26/2004
ELLIS, DAN HOUSE Lost - General Election DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 10/01/2004
NIXON, JOE HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/21/2003
MERCER, KEN HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 06/16/2004
BAXTER, TODD HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/18/2004
FRASER, TROY SENATE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 11/25/2003
FARABEE, DAVID HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 10/28/2004
MERRITT, TOMMY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 12/19/2003
DUNCAN, ROBERT SENATE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 04/17/2004
BRISTER, SCOTT SUPREME COURT Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 07/23/2004
DEWHURST, DAVID LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Did Not Run REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/29/2003
WILLIAMS, TOMMY SENATE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 12/04/2003
PERRY, RICK GOVERNOR Did Not Run REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/23/2003
BARNES, BOB SENATE Lost - Primary Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 12/12/2003
DEWHURST, DAVID LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Did Not Run REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/12/2004
ALLEN, RAY HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 05/24/2004
MADLA, FRANK SENATE Did Not Run DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 10/21/2003
CRADDICK, TOM HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 10/24/2003
BRISTER, SCOTT SUPREME COURT Won REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 01/21/2004
CAPELO, JAIME HOUSE Lost - Primary Election DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 02/17/2004
STICK, JACK HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $5,000 06/10/2004
ARMBRISTER, KEN SENATE Did Not Run DEMOCRAT TX $5,000 12/09/2004
FARABEE, DAVID HOUSE Won DEMOCRAT TX $4,860 05/11/2004
ANDERSON, CHARLES DOC HOUSE Won REPUBLICAN TX $4,828 10/04/2004
OPIELA, ERIC HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $4,705 10/12/2004
CLEMONS, BILLY HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $4,705 10/04/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $3,500 10/28/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $3,500 08/02/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $3,500 10/04/2004
SNOW, H E PETE HOUSE Lost - General Election REPUBLICAN TX $3,500 08/27/2004

I wonder if Rick Perry paid his people before Christmas?Posted on December 26, 2005 at 07:08:47 AM by Jaime KenedeñoCuriosity got the CAT. Remember I spoke to YOU that one Sunday on Homer's CELLY. Take care of YOUR people. Get a loan or something. It is not looking good from down here is South Texas. Why should you sit in Austin; when you dont keep committments? Why even throw your hat in? Maybe Shamsie was "De Layed". Were YOU? JUST A HOPE that got "out of the box"

Re(1): Ladies & Gentlemen,...... I present TLRPosted on December 25, 2005 at 10:51:06 PM by Jaime KenedeñoPRINT THIS STORY E-MAIL THIS STORY Read Mikal Watts' e-mail to Watts Law Firm employees October 15, 2003 Subject: H.B. 4 Amendment Date: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:53 AM From: Mikal C. Watts To All Watts Law Firm employees Advertisement Crew: Vilma Luna is our hero, and Jamie Capelo is our enemy. First, Vilma wisely established a working relationship with the Republicans in control of the House. Second, she arranged for me and her to have a meeting with Rep. Joe Nixon, the author of H.B. 4, and did an outstanding job negotiating with him to save our practice. Third, I wrote an amendment that created large exceptions to the products bill as originally written, including exceptions re: adequate standards, misleading the government, or failing to warn of defects, and she caused Nixon to meet with us, and to actually consider it. Fourth, Vilma negotiated with him, and convinced him to convince TLR that he should look at the amendment, which he agreed to do. Fifth, Greg Gowan and Alex Miller worked diligently with Vilma, as did Joseph Barrientos, to feed her with specific information needed to continue to lobby the other side. Finally, Alex Miller traveled to San Antonio to write specific wording necessary to accommodate the demands of the other side, while allowing us to do what we needed to do. In a full two days of 350 amendments being offered, Vilma's amendments to the products bill, and her work on eliminating the retroactivity provisions, were among only a very few of the amendments that actually were passed, and got into the bill. At 12:30 a.m. this morning, the house passed H.B. 4 with Vilma's amendments in it. Everyone in the firm needs to take a moment to send an email to Vilma at her Texas House email address (attached) to tell her thanks for saving us. Additionally, the other referenced members of the firm are to be congratulated. Finally, keep a long memory. Jaime Capelo tried to shut us down, and we must not forget that when the next election cycle comes around. Vilma's amendment to the product section of the bill converted a situation where originally all product manufacturers making a product that met federal standards (i.e., all cars and all drugs in this country) immune from suit in Texas. Now, the bill merely creates a rebuttal presumption that product meeting a federal standard is not defective, which we can overcome by proving any one of three things: "The claimant may rebut the presumption in Subsection (a) by establishing that: (1) the mandatory federal safety standards or regulations applicable to the product were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage; (2) the manufacturer, before or after marketing the product, withheld information required by or misrepresented information provided to the federal government or agency that was: (a) material and relevant to the federal government's or agency's determination that the mandatory safety standards or regulations at issue were adequate; and (b) causally related to the claimant's injury; or (3) with respect to the manufacturer of a motor vehicle, or a component thereof, after the product was sold and before the alleged injury occurred, the manufacturer learned the vehicle or component part contained a defect causally related to the claimant's injury and to motor vehicle safety and failed to either; (a) give notice to the federal government, or agency of the federal government, that adopted or promulgated the applicable safety standards or regulations; or (b) give notice by first-class mail to each person registered under Texas law as the owner and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer through state records or other available sources, or if the registered owner is not notified, to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer." This is a critical amendment for the continued viability of any products case in the state of Texas, because Section 1 gives us the ability to keep a case alive by arguing what we always argue anyway -- the federal standard governing our product is inadequate. We win cases only when the jury buys this argument anyway. Section 2 allows us to attack the credibility of the product manufacturer's involvement or participation in the formulation of the federal standards. In the auto context specifically, we now get to get into evidence all the political b.s. the manufacturers pulled in the '60s and '70s in getting these standards watered down. Section 3 allows us to resurrect a post-sale duty to warn in Texas. under the Dion v. Ford case, Texas recognized no common law post-sale duty to warn. Since 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1411 was rescinded, and watered down, it was a necessary amendment to allow us to continue to make the arguments we used to make that the manufacturer knew its product was defective and failed to recall it. Most importantly, the previous iterations of the amendment were stripped; i.e. (a) the previous version's immunity becomes a only rebuttal presumption; (b) level of proof to overcome presumption is reduced from clear and convincing evidence to preponderance of the evidence; (c) the previous exception contained separate provisions and the word "AND," meaning you had to prove all of them to not be summary judgment'd out: now, it says "OR", which gives us the ability to pick our exception, to tailor them to the facts of the case. (d) the previous exception provided for the fraud on the government stuff to apply only if it was information required to be given by the manufacturer, it now applies to any information they gave to the government, which is a critical distinction in our car cases, where almost all the information given is through the voluntary comments provisions. (e) the legislative history is going to be very helpful on this, because we went from a draconian version, to one that includes these exceptions, which should be very helpful to us in convincing trial courts that this kind of evidence should come in. In addition to the efforts of members of our firm, which were critical, other lawyers in CC, including past members of our firm, played a critical role. Fil Vela (lobbying other legislators continuously, and arranging lobbyists), Billy Edwards (testifying in the committee meeting), Sico, White & Braugh and Wigington & Rumley (taking victims to the legislature and assisting with p.r. efforts) and others constantly worked to keep the pressure on locally and state-wide re: the products issue. They are to be congratulated as well. The fight is not over. We have much greater opportunities as this bill reaches the Senate. We must continue our diligence, and keep working hard to get this bill fixed. We have got to continue to get present and former clients up there for the members of the Senate to see. We must work diligently for the rest of this session to make sure TLR does not immunize tortfeasors from their victims in this state. Mikal http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:yI2ySmieDj8J:www2.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_2348814,00.html+mikal+watts+tlr+vilma+luna+email+&hl=en

Mikal Watts; YANQUI, he convinced TLR to Loophole HB 4 what do you think he is doing in S TX?Posted on December 25, 2005 at 11:46:15 PM by Jaime Kenedeño“Vilma Luna is our hero, and Jamie Capelo is our enemy. First, Vilma wisely established a working relationship with the Republicans in control of the House.” How many were TLR republicans? “Second, she arranged for me and her to have a meeting with Rep. Joe Nixon, the author of H.B. 4, and did an outstanding job negotiating with him to save our practice.” Rep. Joe Nixon, the author of H.B. 4 NOT Jaime Capelo! “Third, I wrote an amendment that created large exceptions to the products bill as originally written, including exceptions re: adequate standards, misleading the government, or failing to warn of defects, and she caused Nixon to meet with us, and to actually consider it.” Loopholes for Mikal Watt$ “to save his practice”. Fourth, Vilma negotiated with him, and convinced him to convince TLR that he should look at the amendment, which he agreed to do. Watt did Vilma Luna do that convinced Joe Nixon to look at the amendment? Rhetoric is usually backed up by something. Fifth, Greg Gowan and Alex Miller worked diligently with Vilma, as did Joseph Barrientos, to feed her with specific information needed to continue to lobby the other side. Lobby the other side? Feed Vilma Luna with specific information? Are these guys registered lobbyist? Is Vilma Luna a Lobbyist, an employee of Watts, or a representative of the people? What is the “pecking order”? “ Finally, Alex Miller traveled to San Antonio to write specific wording necessary to accommodate the demands of the other side, while allowing us to do what we needed to do. In a full two days of 350 amendments being offered, Vilma's amendments to the products bill, and her work on eliminating the retroactivity provisions, were among only a very few of the amendments that actually were passed, and got into the bill. At 12:30 a.m. this morning, the house passed H.B. 4 with Vilma's amendments in it”. Watt were the demands of the other side? Who is the other side? TLR & Mikal Watts were playing “Good Cop Bad Cop”? Watt did Mikal’s crew “need” to do? Watt made Vilma’s amendments “elite” enough to “pass” and “loophole” the bill? Everyone in the firm needs to take a moment to send an email to Vilma at her Texas House email address (attached) to tell her thanks for saving us. Additionally, the other referenced members of the firm are to be congratulated. Finally, keep a long memory. Jaime Capelo tried to shut us down, and we must not forget that when the next election cycle comes around. Watt did Jaime Capelo do for Tony “Two Fer” Canales, Christus, KFATSO & supposedly for the Doctors (the Malpractice insurance went up after this). The Health Care is the one to benefit. So why was Two Fer Pissed at Capelo? ”Vilma's amendment to the product section of the bill converted a situation where originally all product manufacturers making a product that met federal standards (i.e., all cars and all drugs in this country) immune from suit in Texas.” Watt benefited more? The Consumer? Or the Class Action “Slick” Lawyers? ”Now, the bill merely creates a rebuttal presumption that product meeting a federal standard is not defective, which we can overcome by proving any one of three things: Bullshit! He really means three loopholes to exploit. YANQUI "The claimant may rebut the presumption in Subsection (a) by establishing that: (1) the mandatory federal safety standards or regulations applicable to the product were inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage; (2) the manufacturer, before or after marketing the product, withheld information required by or misrepresented information provided to the federal government or agency that was: (a) material and relevant to the federal government's or agency's determination that the mandatory safety standards or regulations at issue were adequate; and (b) causally related to the claimant's injury; or (3) with respect to the manufacturer of a motor vehicle, or a component thereof, after the product was sold and before the alleged injury occurred, the manufacturer learned the vehicle or component part contained a defect causally related to the claimant's injury and to motor vehicle safety and failed to either; (a) give notice to the federal government, or agency of the federal government, that adopted or promulgated the applicable safety standards or regulations; or (b) give notice by first-class mail to each person registered under Texas law as the owner and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer through state records or other available sources, or if the registered owner is not notified, to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer." This is a critical amendment for the continued viability of any products case in the state of Texas, because Section 1 gives us the ability to keep a case alive by arguing what we always argue anyway -- the federal standard governing our product is inadequate. We win cases only when the jury buys this argument anyway. Section 2 allows us to attack the credibility of the product manufacturer's involvement or participation in the formulation of the federal standards. In the auto context specifically, we now get to get into evidence all the political b.s. the manufacturers pulled in the '60s and '70s in getting these standards watered down. Section 3 allows us to resurrect a post-sale duty to warn in Texas. under the Dion v. Ford case, Texas recognized no common law post-sale duty to warn. Since 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1411 was rescinded, and watered down, it was a necessary amendment to allow us to continue to make the arguments we used to make that the manufacturer knew its product was defective and failed to recall it. Most importantly, the previous iterations of the amendment were stripped; i.e. (a) the previous version's immunity becomes a only rebuttal presumption; (b) level of proof to overcome presumption is reduced from clear and convincing evidence to preponderance of the evidence; (c) the previous exception contained separate provisions and the word "AND," meaning you had to prove all of them to not be summary judgment'd out: now, it says "OR", which gives us the ability to pick our exception, to tailor them to the facts of the case. (d) the previous exception provided for the fraud on the government stuff to apply only if it was information required to be given by the manufacturer, it now applies to any information they gave to the government, which is a critical distinction in our car cases, where almost all the information given is through the voluntary comments provisions. (e) the legislative history is going to be very helpful on this, because we went from a draconian version, to one that includes these exceptions, which should be very helpful to us in convincing trial courts that this kind of evidence should come in. This cost me a lot of money. If you make any of these mistakes “YOUR FIRED”! In addition to the efforts of members of our firm, which were critical, other lawyers in CC, including past members of our firm, played a critical role. Fil Vela (ROSE VELA’s HUSBAND) (lobbying other legislators continuously, and arranging lobbyists), Billy Edwards (testifying in the committee Braugh and Wigington & Rumley (taking victims to the legislature and assisting with meeting), Sico, White & p.r. efforts) and others constantly worked to keep the pressure on locally and state-wide re: the products issue. They are to be congratulated as well. The fight is not over. We have much greater opportunities as this bill reaches the Senate. We must continue our diligence, and keep working hard to get this bill fixed. We have got to continue to get present and former clients up there for the members of the Senate to see. We must work diligently for the rest of this session to make sure TLR does not immunize tortfeasors from their victims in this state.
Mikal

How do we now know who you have posted as this past year Carrales!!Posted on December 26, 2005 at 07:55:41 AM by EstevanWhat do you think Jaime? Copied fron EVW forum Capt Carrales Posts: 4083 Merry Christmas...I'm The Gringe 12/24/2005 11:07 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's been a fun charade. Brought out a lot of good Christmas feelings. I willnot spend the rest of this tread denying that I was The Gringe. You may now address The Gringe as the fictional characer he is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh OhPosted on December 26, 2005 at 08:22:23 AM by Jaime KenedeñoOle Eric's board is not working for me Is it working for you right now? Cannot find Server since about 3 or 4 pm. Who is Mary Cano? That is what I think. Isassi, is he "not getting his way"? I am Curious? RU Mr Gringe? Sorry Capitan, but that was in poor taste. You dissappoint me. We expected better from you Mr NO agenda. But I did enjoy your night in Corpus Christi. Very creative & Conspiratorial in Humor of Course. It summons the motivational issues addressed before you wrote it. If YOU were inebriated;..... too much EGG Nog, one too many toddies or maybe drank the water in Mexico...... Just say so.

Looks like somebody is "Cliquing" their......Posted on December 25, 2005 at 05:02:17 PM by Jaime Kenedeñoheals together. Looks like a trampoline effect off of Shamsie's unfortunate demise. It aint over the Clique still has all of the Shamsie nuggets of info he learned while being Mr "Boss of Bosses". Whiplash, Backlash or whoop a$$?

Re(1): Looks like somebody is Posted on December 26, 2005 at 04:12:23 AM by dannoynted1 TLR lash

TRL la$h, You mean TRL CA$H Supported Capelo, MIKAL "convinced" with WATTSPosted on December 26, 2005 at 05:00:56 AM by Jaime KenedeñoWhat was the DEAL that VILMA LUNA LIASED with JOE NIXON and TLR. MOTIVATION???? What were the "LEGAL ARGUMENTS"? How much "CA$H" was tranferred? We know why. But WHY anyway? Where were the meetings? Dates we need to get some dates. Who else besides the obvious PLAYERS? Now we need follow the money for the lower level Politics like Judge JAG & STIVERS. Oh yeah dont forget to add Patricia Canales Bell to the list. Tony "TWO FER" Canales chingalings his own FAMLIA! For Real. Right GABBY? He gave you to them instead of what? Maybe something to do with the ISLAND? It wasnt his enemies. TWO FER that is. It is Capelo's enemy. Whoever that was / is. Somebody had the DPS CHAYSEN his FAMILY aound town. CAPELO THAT IS. HUGO set him into his PLACE state representative SEAT. MODIFICATION OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES is a WIA / BYRNE GRANT / TWC specialty. If you WORK in TEXAS;...... they control. HVALINKA v. Schubert Ask MARY CANO. Ask John Hubert. Ask Ernesto Solis. Ask Noel Pena.

“Blessed be those that thirst for JUSTICE, for they shall be quenched”Posted on December 26, 2005 at 06:23:09 AM by Jaime & dannoynted1ISASSI either didn’t do his HOMEWORK or he chooses to back MALICIOUS PROSECUTOR JOHN HUBERT. BTW, ole Alfred was there (KAFFIES Ocean Front Property) right SHAMSIE? Ran as soon as he saw me. "Chicken Shit" ole ALFREDO right shamsie, right Jill, right Joseph (hubba hubba), right Sam Granato's Special Prosecutor ("a close close Personal Friend" of the "SOLICITOR of JURISPRUDENCE"). Ultimately Jurisdiction & OMNIFICENT PLENARY POWER resides with my LORD, GOD retains Pro Bono. GOD helps those who help themselves. TLR we are engaging. "YO legislators, "YOUR Legislators are waiting to hear from you" "Awaitng your response they remain" SHAMSIE "came down the stairs" all sweaty, saw me and ran. He was following some Gimpy looking Character. Lhe resembled that guy who "testified in the Dude who threw his chick "DOWN THE STAIRS"" at least that was his story (documented by Court TV). "Chicken Shit" tactics as "THE WHINER" termed it. JOHN HUBERT: "YOURE DAMN RIGHT ITS PERSONAL" “Blessed be those that thirst for JUSTICE, for they shall be quenched” “Quench YOUR thirst”

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?si=200443&d=7034900&p=A01A01A01#cand_contrib

Re(1): vato loco does not...........................Posted on December 26, 2005 at 04:09:44 AM by dannoynted1even alligators need to eat

Re(2): vato loco does not...........................Posted on December 26, 2005 at 04:34:53 AM by Jaime KenedeñoIt depends,.... WATT you eat on the Texas Workforce? You know the Texas Workforce does not consider SUBSTITUTE TEACHING as EMPLOYMENT; cuz you never know they may never call you (your'e HOUSE) again. Ask her,...... you know her name. If not do a little HOMEWORK. He works at the school where her husband WORKS (as Principal). Tell him to be himself and to keep a daily log of his day. ELECTRONICALLY THAT IS. We will back you up. egnirguci