Zeta camp slayings described in Laredo trial

By Jason Buch/San Antonio Express-News

 

LAREDO — A Zeta hit man on Wednesday offered a peek into the slaughter that took place in the small Mexican town of San Fernando, where the remains of 200 bodies were unearthed last year, testifying how new cartel recruits were trained to kill there.

“They would show new recruits how to kill,” testified Wenceslao Tovar, 26, an admitted Zeta sicario, or hit man. “They would give them a machete. If not, they’d give them a sledge hammer and they’d tell them to kill the people they had tied up.”

Those who successfully completed the training were treated to a party that included a raffle with winners getting watches, vehicles and cash, Tovar said. Those who couldn’t kill were made halcones, the Spanish word for “hawks,” used to describe cartel lookouts, he said.

Tovar’s testimony came in the trial of Gerardo Castillo Chavez, a 25-year-old from Mexico, on charges that he took part in killings and assaults in 2006 as part of a drug conspiracy. But testimony in the first day of trail went far beyond Castillo Chavez’s alleged involvement with the Zetas.

 

Read more……..

 

BP Garners a High Profile in Oil and Gas Industry Accidents

Author: Guerra & Farah, PLLC

The BP Gulf oil spill in 2010 became known as the worst oil spill to date. However, preceding that spill, BP already had one of the worst track records for oil refinery accidents of any gas and oil manufacturer. The most notable among a string of prior incidents was a unit within the Texas City oil refinery that exploded in 2005, causing a fire and taking the lives of 15 workers and injuring 170.

An ABC News report  in 2010 stated that BP had one of the worst safety records of any major oil company operating in the United States, accounting for 97 percent of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations in Texas and Ohio, which totaled 760 violations. Compare this statistic to Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips, each with eight violations and Citgo with two. As a result of continuing violations at the Texas City plant, BP paid the highest fine OSHA has ever issued, $87 million.

The common denominator for BP’s accidents pointed to a lack of safety processes and failure to develop a safety culture among its workers.

Texas boasts more oil refineries than any other state. If you have suffered injury in an oil refinery accident or have lost a loved one, safety violations may provide grounds for a lawsuit. A Texas oil refinery accident lawyer serving clients in Corpus Christi, El Paso, or Houston can assist you in seeking compensation.

BP Alcanza un Alto Nivel en la Frecuencia de Accidentes de la Industria Petrolera

El derrame de petróleo en el Golfo por BP en 2010 se conocía como el derrame de petróleo peor hasta la fecha. Sin embargo, precediendo ese derramamiento, BP ya tenía uno de los historiales peores del mundo por los accidentes de la refinería de petróleo. Un incidente más notable era la explosión de la refinería de petróleo en la Ciudad de Tejasen 2005. Este accidente resulto en un fuego enorme que dano a 170 trabajadores, y mato a 15 trabajadores.
En 2010, un reportaje de noticias de ABC  indicó que BP tenía uno de los historiales peores de la seguridad de cualquier compañía petrolera importante que actuaba en los Estados Unidos. BP es responsable por 97 por cientos de las violaciones de la Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) en Tejas y Ohio, que sumaron 760 violaciones. Compare esta estadística a Sunoco y a Conoco-Phillips, cada una de estas companias solo tiene ocho violaciones, y Citgo solo tiene dos. Como resultado de violaciones continuadas en la refinería en la Ciudad de Tejas, BP pagó la multa más alta que OSHA ha jamas demandado- $87 millones.
La causa común que es responsable por los accidentes de BP era una falta de medidas de seguridad  y el hecho que BP falto de desarrollar una cultura de la seguridad entre sus trabajadores.
Tejas tiene más refinerías de petróleo de cualquier otro estado. Si usted ha sufrido lesiones en un accidente de una refinería petrolera o ha perdido un amado en este tipo de accidente, las violaciones de la seguridad pueden proveer los argumentos necesarios para arreglar un pleito. Un abogado experimentado en casos de accidentes de refinerías petroleras y que sirva a clientes en Corpus Christi, El Paso, u Houston puede ayudarle en obtener la remuneración que busca.

Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.

Tell Congress: Don’t censor the Web

Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding. There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs.

Too much is at stake – please vote NO on PIPA and SOPA.

Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.

Tell Congress: Don’t censor the Web

Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding. There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs.

Too much is at stake – please vote NO on PIPA and SOPA.

We all lose if the “loser pays” tort reform bill becomes law.

House Bill 274 –called the “loser pays” tort reform bill – involves changing the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  The changes are ugly and run contrary to Texans’ longstanding belief that our court house doors should be open to everyone, no matter who they are or how much money they have.  These changes will deprive Texans from accessing the court house.  Let me explain one of the most important changes, why it is important, how it will affect people who have been wronged and have damages, and why these rule changes are simply not Texan.

First, the Civil Practice and Remedies Code is what controls judges and lawyers involved in lawsuits for money at the court house.

Right now, if you feel you have been wronged by a person or business, and you have lost money or been physically injured, you can file a lawsuit.  There are many reasons we file lawsuits.  You can file a lawsuit if a speeder/’texter’ rear-ends you on the road, you and your car are damaged, and the ‘texter’s’ insurance won’t pay for repairs or medical bills.  You can file a lawsuit if a business sells you an expensive product that doesn’t do what the seller promised you it would do, and the seller won’t refund your money.  You can file a lawsuit if you start a small business with your friend, and your friend steals all the business’s money.  There are many reasons why we file lawsuits.  At the end of the day, we file lawsuits when we’ve tried to work out our disagreements, but the person or business who has wronged us just won’t do the right thing.  The person who files the lawsuit is called a plaintiff, and the person who has to defend against the lawsuit is called the defendant.

This “loser pays” bill is supposed to prevent frivolous lawsuits.  Don’t believe the hype: frivolous lawsuits are not clogging our court houses.  In 2007, a poll of Texas civil judges found that about 80% of those judges did not think that frivolous lawsuits were a problem.

Without this Bill, there are ways for a defendant to kill a meritless lawsuit without going to trial.  First, of course, the defendant and plaintiff can negotiate.  If they come to an agreement, the plaintiff can agree to dismiss a claim.  But, if the plaintiff and defendant cannot come to an agreement, the case continues on in the court house.  A defendant currently has a very powerful tool to kill a plaintiff’s case – a motion for summary judgment.  A defendant can present evidence to the judge, and basically say “judge, the plaintiff is suing for x, but the law says you can’t sue for x – this case should be dismissed as a matter of law because the plaintiff has no legal right to sue for this.”  If the judge agrees, the judge can dismiss the plaintiff’s case, or part of the plaintiff’s case.

Summary judgment is incredibly powerful, and sometimes, it is fairly simple.  For example: let’s say you and I are trying to park in the same parking spot at the grocery store.  I whip my 2003 Ford Focus into the spot you have been waiting to park your 2010 Acura in.  You get out of your car and start yelling at me to be more considerate.  As I get out of my car to yell back at you, I trip over a curb, skin my knees and elbows, and knock out one of my teeth.  You get back in your car and find another parking space.  I get your license plate number, track down your name, and file a lawsuit alleging that you assaulted me.  I ask for the costs associated with my cuts and bruises and dental repair.

You can file a motion for summary judgment based on these facts.  You can say: “Judge, Plaintiff Millie has failed to provide a legal reason why I should be responsible for her clumsiness – my yelling did not cause her to fall.  I am not responsible for Plaintiff Millie’s damages because I did not cause them.  Love, Defendant.”  And, the judge would probably grant that motion.  Sometimes – even though we may be mad or feel like we’ve been wronged – there’s nothing that can be done about it.  We have the right to try – the court house doors are open to us.  But summary judgment is how cases get weeded out so that meritless cases are killed before trial.  Texas civil judges seem to be happy with summary judgment as the method of killing meritless lawsuits because most judges don’t think frivolous lawsuits are a problem.

The “loser pays” bill intends to fix that which isn’t broken.  First, we already have a way of killing meritless lawsuits.  Importantly, the new rules say that if the case is dismissed, the court can award attorney’s fees and court costs to the winner of the motion to dismiss.  Instead of just getting the case dismissed, the defendant could now get court costs and attorney’s fees if the defendant gets a case dismissed.  What’s wrong with that?  Well, first of all it is not how we do things in Texas.  We believe all of us should be able to walk into the court house.  Awarding fees to the defendant who wins a dismissal will prevent people and small businesses from suing when they have a legitimate reason to file a lawsuit.

Let me explain why: let’s say you go out for drinks with your co-workers.  You drink a little too much, and so you call a taxi to pick you up from the pub.  The taxi comes, picks you up, and the driver drives away from where you told him to go.  In fact, he drives to a deserted parking lot, where he pulls a gun on you, hits you a few times, and robs you.  He then dumps you in the middle of nowhere without your cell phone.  After a few hours of walking (and you are very sober at this point), someone stops their car and lets you use their cell phone to call the police.  Ultimately, the driver is identified and arrested.  You discover that this driver has a long criminal history, including violent offenses of assault  – all committed before this guy was hired by the taxi company.  You don’t have any money to file a lawsuit (in part because the taxi driver used your debit card and drained your bank account).  You don’t know how lawsuits work, and the court house scares you.

So you call a lawyer.  Currently, there are many lawyers who will take your case on contingency – meaning that they don’t ask you for any money up-front.  Instead, you agree to let the lawyer take a percentage of any monetary award the lawyer helps you get.  Lawyers take these cases even though there is always a chance that they will have expended hours and hours of work for nothing – the case might be dismissed after a motion for summary judgment, or a jury may decide that the defendant isn’t liable.  Lawyers take that risk, in the hopes that they do win, and because it feels great to help someone who was hurt by someone else’s wrong-doing.

If this Bill is passed, that taxi company can try to get attorney’s fees from you if you file a lawsuit and it is dismissed.  That taxi company will probably hire pretty expensive lawyers to defend them.  Instead of just looking at losing the case, you are looking at paying the taxi company thousands of dollars in legal fees.  Think about this – they hired a convict who robbed you, and you have to pay them thousands of dollars.  Who would ever bring a lawsuit if there’s a chance that they would have to pay the person or business who wronged them?  Wealthy people and big businesses will still have access to the legal system.  There’s a saying: “Never bet the rent.”  For normal people and small businesses, it is all “rent,” and we won’t be willing to gamble in court.

This new bill kills lawsuits before they are even filed.  Reasonable people like you will look at the potential costs of filing a lawsuit, and decide that you are better off just letting the whole thing slide – even if the defendant has done something very wrong, and you have been severely hurt.  For this reason, this Bill closes the court house doors to those of us who are not gamblers.  Texas courts are open to everyone – rich or poor, small business or big company.  This Bill will close court house doors to people and small businesses who just don’t have the money to gamble.

Call your Texas State Senator.  Tell them that you value your right to walk into the court house, and you oppose the “loser pays” bill.

Forcing an American to Give Blood is Unconstitutional

Juan and I (Millie) were scheduled to go to trial this week in a DWI case.  We spent hours last week and over the weekend preparing to cross-examine the expert witnesses because this case was a blood-draw case.  We reviewed the scientific articles on gas chromatography – which is the test used by most DPS labs to determine the level of alcohol in the blood.  We studied articles on retrograde extrapolation – where an expert tries to determine what the blood alcohol level was at the time of the arrest, maybe hours before the blood was drawn.  We talked to chemists about the difference between ethanol and isopropyl alcohol.  We pulled dozens of cases about blood-draws, and found as many legal ways we could attack the admissibility of the blood evidence.  And we drafted four motions to suppress, each on different grounds, as well as written objections, etc etc etc.

And the case was dismissed this morning.

 The reason why the prosecutor dismissed the case was because it appeared that the cop lied in his affidavit to get a warrant to take the blood.  He exaggerated to make our client seem like he was in bad shape when he was not. 

It is amazing to me that we allow forced blood-draws in our society.  No, strike that – I am outraged that we allow forced blood-draws in our society.  Imagine being held down by two burly police officers and having a sharp object inserted into your body.  Now, imagine that happening in a dirty police station holding cell that smells like the sweaty former occupants. Why on Earth are we ok with this?

Let’s start with the law: The Texas Transportation Code Section 724.011 says that if a person is arrested for an intoxicated-related offense, it is automatically assumed that the person consents to having his blood taken.  If the person is unconscious, Section 724.014 says that the unconscious person cannot refuse the consent.  To protect Texans, the Legislature did something smart in Section 724.017 requiring that only certain qualified people can take the blood sample, and it MUST be taken in a sanitary place.    

Let’s say you have been driving 5 hours straight.  You’re tired, but you’re ok.  You stop for dinner and have two beers with your meal.  When you continue on your drive, you decide you want to listen to an old Johnny Cash cd.  So you look over to the cd case on the passenger seat, and you pull out the cd and put it in the radio.  When you looked over, your car drifted slightly into the next lane.  It was no big deal.  Your car is the only car on the road.  The next lane is going in the same direction.  Well, a police officer saw you drift over into the other lane, and it is after midnight.  So the officer puts on his lights, and pulls you over.  He smells beer on your breath.  He gets you out of the car to do the field sobriety tests.  Well, 1) you’re tired, 2) you are stiff from your long drive, and 3) you’re not in very good shape.  You fail the field sobriety tests.  The officer arrests you and asks you to sign a consent form to take a sample of your breath, and he asks you to sign the consent form to take a sample of your blood. 

You refuse both.  You didn’t do anything wrong.  You told the officer you only had two beers with your meal.  Why should he be arresting you?  Those field sobriety tests are impossible to do unless you’re a teenage athlete in great condition. 

Well, he can draw-up a quick and dirty affidavit, fax it to a magistrate, who will fax a warrant to take your blood.  Let’s say you’re afraid of needles.  You freak-out a bit and struggle.  Well, they can hold you down and take your blood.

People far smarter than me have been debating this issue since the 1950s when the United States Supreme Court held that it is ok for police officers to forcibly pump the stomach of a person suspected of a crime.  The Dissenting Justices on that case argued that the person was forced to give evidence against himself, violating the 5^th Amendment.  Later, the Supreme Court explained that blood evidence is not testimonial – it isn’t in words – so forcing someone to give blood does not violate the 5^th Amendment.  If you think about it – the 5^th Amendment says that we have the right not to give “evidence” against ourselves.  It does not say we have the right not to “testify” against ourselves.  There’s a difference, and I think the Supreme Court missed the mark.  Being forced to give part of your own body to law enforcement violates the 5^th Amendment. 

More than that, though, it is shocking and unconscionable.  A police officer can’t beat a confession out of you.  A police officer can’t pull-out your hair with tweezers to force you to confess.  But a cop can cause a needle to be shoved into your arm to extract part of your body to be used against you in trial? 

I do understand the reasoning behind drawing blood samples in a DWI case.  People die every day in alcohol-related crashes.  No one has the right to put our families in danger by getting behind the wheel of a car when they are ‘three sheets to the wind.’  Our state government has a very serious reason to want to make sure that there is enough evidence to convict someone of an intoxication-related crime.

But, again, we don’t allow police officers to beat confessions out of people – our Constitution protects us from police misconduct – no matter what crime we’re accused of committing.  Moreover, even the Legislature believes in protecting people accused of a crime by insisting that only qualified people take the blood sample, and only do so in a sanitary environment.

Merely ensuring a sanitary environment is not enough.  Taking a part of a person’s body from them by force is not ok.  It is not Constitutional. 

For those of you with any kind of medical condition that would result in an emergency situation if your blood is taken in a questionable manner – you must tell the police officer this.  If you are taking blood-thinners, refuse the consent and tell the officer about your condition.  If you have a condition where it will be difficult for the nurse/technician to find a vein, tell the officer and refuse your consent.

Allstate Insurance Claim Process- Adjuster and Injured Party

by Trey Mills

This is way too funny (and true) not to share.  Enjoy.  Just remember this
conversation before you change insurance companies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udS_kxWS04&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It’s interesting how the conversation twists and turns and it somehow gets distorted……

Personal Injury, Criminal Defense and Business Litigation in Houston, TX

With offices in Houston, El Paso and McAllen, Texas, Guerra & Farah, PLLC, uses the excellent trial skills and diverse backgrounds of its lawyers to provide clients with quality representation. When you retain our law firm, you will receive the highest level of personal service from one of our partner attorneys, who will personally handle your case from start to finish.

We believe that our success has come from our hard work and choice to personally handle every aspect of clients’ cases, rather than have an associate or junior partner attorney work your case up and then pass it on to us to try. Our personal attention will allow us to understand the intricacies and nuances of your case.

We offer Free Initial Consultations, contingent-fee arrangements (you pay us only if we recover compensation for you) for personal injury claims, and flexible payment options to fit your budget in cases involving fees.