BISD VS. RENDON, JUAREZ AND GONZALES, WHO'S SPINNING THE TRUTH? AND FOR WHAT MOTIVE?

By Juan Montoya
What if someone told you that two local attorneys (Star Jones, of the Law Office of Star Jones, and Frank Perez, of Perez & Associates) had taken on the high-priced legal guns from Dallas, Houston, and their local counsel in Harlingen and Brownsville and had held their own and even beat them at their own game in federal court?
Or what if you learned that the same same two local attorneys had fought off a motion for qualified immunity for four former elected officials and then beat back an appeal to the decision by the local federal judge before the Fifth Court of Appeals in New Orleans?
And, further, what if the four former trustees of the Brownsville Independent School District filed for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc before the same court, and were both denied when the judges sided with U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, and, indirectly, the same two local attorneys’ legal arguments against the granting of immunity for their actions?
As a result, the four, individually and in their official capacity, must now go to trial in federal court on the allegations raised by former BISD Chief Financial Officer Antonio Juarez that he was fired after he went to the FBI and other federal authorities to complain about bid rigging and violation of his First Amendment rights on the awarding of a Stop-Loss insurance contract for the self-insured district.
In another instance, despite the BISD paying Harlingen legal gun-for-hire attorney Ric Navarro some $400,000 to provide them a justification to fire former Special Needs Director Art Rendon and former BISD Superintendent Hector Gonzales, the district chose instead to settle rather than drag on the costly litigation.
Now, who in their right mind would call the principals of thi legal tag-team duo – a David against a Goliath in legal terms – "con artist lawyers?"
Well, despite suffering the indignities from critics of their clients – and from a bitter misanthrope and blogger who is himself a disbarred lawyer, a sort of Equal Opportunity offender – the local little guys continue to win where it matters, in the courtroom.
Both Perez and Star, as is Ben Neece in one, are listed as attorneys of record in these cases.
Typically, Perez and Star declined comment on this post, but an illustration will suffice to show that despite the hang-wringing and spin given these cases from certain quarters, the spun story is very different than the one told in court documents.
To illustrate this, check out the account given of the Gonzales case in the Internet and the actual docket information filed in the courts. The post, "WHY IS HECTOR GONZALES RUNNING FROM JUDGE HANEN?," March 1, 2012, screams in cap letter headlines.
Gonzales, through his attorneys, first filed suit in the 357th District Court back in Sept. 16, 2011. The BISD attorneys, after being served four days later (Sept. 20), answered the complaint on Oct. 28. Then, on Nov. 16, the BISD sought to remove the lawsuit to federal court.
Even if you're a layman, as we are, we can understand that under federal procedure, the defendant (BISD) has 30 days after they were served to ask that the case be removed (therefore the term "removal") to federal court. Why the BISD attorneys wanted to go to federal court instead of the 357th is anybody's guess.
Now, remember that the BISD was served on on Sept. 20. Their motion to remove wasn't filed until Nov. 16, 2011, almost two months after service and way past the 30 day limit to request that the case be removed to federal court.
In light of this, Hanen could do nothing else than to order that the case be remanded to the 357th.
Now, some would call this good, hard-nosed lawyering. Instead, the village cynic calls it "running" from Hanen. But if Gonzales had initially filed in state court and wanted it to be heard there, how is this "running" and who's the "con artist" here, Gonzales' attorneys or the blog writer?
In fact, lead BISD attorney Heidi J. Gumienny admitted as much when she said in a response that "BISD cannot in good faith object" to Gonzales' motion.
We don't know how much Gumienny, of Gordon & Rees, LLP, or her firm is getting paid for this work, but if this is an example of their level of their representation, something is amiss.
For example, in the defense response filed Nov. 16 to the initial Gonzales complaint filed in the 357th, Gumienny said BISD was served on Oct. 21, instead of Sept. 20.
And then, in her motion to remove the case to federal court, she wrote that: "Wherefore, defendant the City of Conroe(?), requests that the action...be removed..."
Nowhere does Hanen take the local lawyers " to task for their lack of knowledge of the law, ethics, and rules of procedure..(or did he go)...out of his way to note the near entire blame for
his involvement in the case was with (them)"...when he ruled that the situation did not warrant the payment of attorneys fees, a pro forma request in these procedures.
Now, why would someone say all these things were contained in the brief Hanen order and for what reason?
Could it be that some people are still smarting over the loss of their cronies on the BISD board two years ago and are doing their damnest to deny the fact that in the cases mentioned above, the BISD – and the former board's majority who spawned them – have been in the losing end along with their legal "experts" and "consultants" and the local firm and their clients have come out on top?