Google Yourself Corpus Christi: ... ROB EISSLER,, CHUY HINOJOSA, DAVID DEWHURST, KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, SOLOMON ORTIZ SR AND JP COURTS OF INJUSTICE
Justice of the Peace Courts' Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings "do not include confinement"
Dear State Representative Solomon P Ortiz Jr.,
As South Texas and HD #33 remain in anticipation of your response to the email communication regarding Texas Education Code 25.093 specifically and the Texas Education Code 25, another issue has been brought to my attention regarding the JP Courts Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings that are punishable by fine only
This is the preface of the JP Court illustrated below in the image entitled Court Structure of Texas according to The Official Website of Texas Courts
However, the Justice Courts are punishing by confinement.
The Justice Courts are not appointing Attorneys for indigent defendants involved in adversarial judicial proceedings that are resulting in punishment by confinement.
In Nueces County, the Justice of the Peace Judges are not licensed
A court whose acts and proceedings are recorded and preserved.
www.courts.mo.gov/osca/index.nsf/0/8b69295b674dde2186256e15004ea27f In common law jurisdictions, a court of record is a court that keeps permanent records of its proceedings. Judgments of a trial court of record are normally subject to appellate review. In many jurisdictions, all courts are courts of record. In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of record.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_record
There is no accountability.
One other issue is the counting of a certain number of tardies as an absence and the absence is counted towards a truancy absence. There is not a provision for this illegal manipulation so as to prosecute. This prosecution under 25.093 and 25.094 can be easily proven if necessary.
To quote a Nueces County District Judge, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" as our HD #33 Representative we ask for emergency intervention and reform of this bad law. This is an appeal to you from South Texas. Do we really need to collect letters and signatures for our South Texas Delegation to take immediate action?
Respectfully,
Anton S Haley
As South Texas and HD #33 remain in anticipation of your response to the email communication regarding Texas Education Code 25.093 specifically and the Texas Education Code 25, another issue has been brought to my attention regarding the JP Courts Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings that are punishable by fine only
This is the preface of the JP Court illustrated below in the image entitled Court Structure of Texas according to The Official Website of Texas Courts
Court Structure of Texas
And also according to the The Handbook of Texas Online
Justice of the Peace Courts have jurisdiction over criminal offenses that are
punishable by fine only, and over civil cases in which the amount in
controversy is small (not more than $5,000 in 1995).
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 1.051. RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL.(c) An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney
appointed to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding
that may result in punishment by confinement and in any other
criminal proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of
justice require representation. Except as otherwise provided by
this subsection, if an indigent defendant is entitled to and
requests appointed counsel and if adversarial judicial proceedings
have been initiated against the defendant, a court or the courts'
designee authorized under Article 26.04 to appoint counsel for
indigent defendants in the county shall appoint counsel as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the third working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel. In a county with a
population of 250,000 or more, the court or the courts' designee
shall appoint counsel as required by this subsection as soon as
possible, but not later than the end of the first working day after
the date on which the court or the courts' designee receives the
defendant's request for appointment of counsel.
Please note the limitation operatives under Art. 4.11
JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE (JP) COURTS.
"not consisting of confinement or imprisonment"
and
"do not include confinement"
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4. COURTS AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Art. 4.11. [60] [106] [96] JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE
COURTS. (a) Justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction
in criminal cases:
(1) punishable by fine only or punishable by:
(A) a fine; and
(B) as authorized by statute, a sanction not consisting of
confinement or imprisonment; or
(2) arising under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code,
that do not include confinement as an authorized sanction.
(b) The fact that a conviction in a justice court has as a
consequence the imposition of a penalty or sanction by an agency or
entity other than the court, such as a denial, suspension, or
revocation of a privilege, does not affect the original
jurisdiction of the justice court.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 108, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1,
1991; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 449, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 533, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997,
75th Leg., ch. 1013, Sec. 38, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
However, the Justice Courts are punishing by confinement.
The Justice Courts are not appointing Attorneys for indigent defendants involved in adversarial judicial proceedings that are resulting in punishment by confinement.
In Nueces County, the Justice of the Peace Judges are not licensed
attorneys nor is the Justice Court a Court of Record Court.
A Court of Record is defined as:A court in which the proceedings are recorded, transcribed, and maintained as permanent records.
brandonlclark.com/glossary.html
www.courts.mo.gov/osca/index.nsf/0/8b69295b674dde2186256e15004ea27f
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_record
There is no recourse.
There is no accountability.
One other issue is the counting of a certain number of tardies as an absence and the absence is counted towards a truancy absence. There is not a provision for this illegal manipulation so as to prosecute. This prosecution under 25.093 and 25.094 can be easily proven if necessary.
To quote a Nueces County District Judge, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" as our HD #33 Representative we ask for emergency intervention and reform of this bad law. This is an appeal to you from South Texas. Do we really need to collect letters and signatures for our South Texas Delegation to take immediate action?
Respectfully,
Anton S Haley
Labels: Bad Law, CCISD, Chuy Hinojosa, Corpus Christi, Solomon P Ortiz Jr, Texas Education, Truancy
Dear Texas Public Education Committee Chairman: the Honorable Rob Eissler,
Posted on February 18, 2007 at 00:50:12 AM by Jaime Kenedeno
Saturday, February 17, 2007
When a minor is allowed to run at large during the school day hours, It is irresponsible of the caretaker whose custody in which a child is placed
I am speaking to the distinguished Gentleman from Montgomery County,
The Honorable Rob Eissler,
It is expected, we demand it and we are very angry. We are Angry Parents and Children allover the Great State of Texas. We will bring Texas to your front porch should the ignorance continue. Start paying attention to the people, the families who are enduring the legislation mistakes created no doubt in good faith but have gone awry. Ask the South Texas Delegation about South Texas and they will tell you dont mess with South Texas and dont go against Los Kenedenos when they know and believe they are right and just in a cause. This is one of those causes. I promise.
Education is for our Children, our Youth, our Future. Children and Youth need constant redirection and set boundaries at home and at school as well. When a minor is allowed to run at large during the school day hours whether it is in the halls, leaving or returning a closed campus or simply unaccounted for is irresponsible of the caretaker whose custody in which he / she is placed. it is of the most primary of concerns to find out where the hell he is and where the hell he was and as a Principal / Educator it is happening on his watch. Fining parents who require their children to attend school is unjust and destructive; as they ENTRUST their children's direction well being and safety to the custody of a School Campus Administration.
http://robeissler.blogspot.com/2007/02/when-minor-is-allowed-to-run-at-large.html
1 comment:
The methodology for the “Diversion Agreement” as it affected my son and I in the charges of failure to attend school, In the justice Court, Precinct 8, position2 Cause No. CR82C0144252 After becoming aware of my son’s truant behavior, and determining the cause, and trying continually to remedy the situation in conjunction with my son’s principal, we finally had our initial day in court. Upon entering the courtroom, we were told to complete a form and produce identification. Then the court played a video in both English and Spanish, explaining the process minimally. My son and are were the 1st defendants called. We approached the table that had called us, and sat down. There were four individuals at the table, none of which identified or introduced themselves to my son or myself. I understand my son and I were the defendants in the action, but as it was a pretrial. Cara Hernandez, I assume as the diversion agreement was stamped with her name, immediately started questioning my son in a tone similar to the actions and demeanor of prosecuting attorney Kelly Siegler, but again without the introduction. My son answered her questions, but when Mrs. Hernandez summed up her interpretation of what my son had said, she repeatedly said my son was blaming his truant behavior on everyone else. Upon direct questioning as to why he had been repeatedly absent, my son said he had an issue with a teacher, even brought up a verbal attack from the teacher directed at my son and other students. Mrs. Hernandez in her questioning of my son stated, it looks as if you fell off the planet, but it seems your back. Mrs Hernandez also stated that she hated to put children like my son in jail as he had no prior history, but kids like him almost always end up in jail, where as students that are always in court are smart enough to do just enough to stay out of jail. A man at the table handed me a piece of paper and requested I get Mike in counseling, I responded that Mike is already being seen by a counselor. He then asks if Mike had ever had a psychological assessment. I answered, “Not that I’m aware of.” He explained his name and number was written on the paper, and requested that I have a psychological assessment of my son done at Depelchin Children’s center. I contacted Depechin, to schedule a psychological assessment, explaining it had been court ordered thru a diversion agreement at my son’s court hearing in regards to truancy. The representative over the phone, seemed a little perplexed, she questioned, what sort of psychological assessment do you need? The paper I had been given was dated 9/7/06 from a web page that is no longer available, http://www.depelchin.org/display.php/tid/11.html. In spite of the message I left for Raul Gaona, yesterday after my conversation with the Depelchin representative, I have not received a return call. The Depelchin representative did volunteer that the Doctors used by Depelchin for psychological assessments were not accredited with any insurance. I contacted my sons’ therapist that works in conjunction with a licensed Psychiatrist, I explained what the court had ordered, a psychological assessment. The therapist asked what kind, rudimentary psychological assessment, personality psychological assessment, projection psychological assessment, or intelligence psychological assessment? After I explained it only said psychological assessment, my sons therapist explained, it would not be covered by insurance unless it was medically necessary. He also concluded if it became medically necessary in the course of therapy, it would be a covered testing. In the signed diversion agreement, we agreed to continue therapy, so I don’t understand the necessity of having a psychological assessment that has yet to be deemed a medical necessity. Obviously in following the court order of continued therapy, one would follow the recommendations of a mental health authority. My question to Raul Gaona would be in you minimal participation in the diversion agreement yesterday, do you think your question as to weather or not I had insurance indicated to me, along with the paper with hand written…No Contract No Evolv- Insurance, Medicaid, chips…that the psychological assessment would be covered to the extent my insurance allowed ? I am appalled by the actions and manipulation of words used by Cara Hernandez, and intentional mis-information indicated by Mr. Gaona. In the prosecutions discussion of perhaps getting a mentor, to mentor my child in how to cross the intersection of Bay Area Blvd(4 lanes of traffic), and Fm 528(5lanes), 15 minutes before sunrise, to get too tutorials(with an abusive teacher)on time, the prosecutor and all participants at the table should be mentored on the common courtesy of introducing oneself before questioning them or listening to their questioning.
To the assumed School district representative, had you recently been in contact with the principal at my son’s school perhaps you would have been aware of the mitigating circumstances regarding my son’s absences. The prosecutor implied my son had made up the conflict between the teacher and my son, as a representative of the school district, I would expect at least some acknowledgement of the said issue. The principal at my son’s school has obviously concluded, there was a real or perceived issue between my son and the teacher, as her actions allowing my child to remain in the student center during that teacher’s period, and has finally allowed my son to transfer out of that teacher’s class. Also, I do not understand which absences were used to charge my son with failure to attend school, as none accompanied the complaint. Under Section 25.0951 of the Texas Education Code If the school district chooses to file the charge of “failure to attend school” against the student, it must do so within ten (10) school days of the student’s 10th absence. The court must dismiss charges that are not filed within 10 school days of the student’s 10th absence.
Post a Comment