WHO'S GETTING DANGEROUSLY DESPERATE IN CCAL #3 RACE?

By Juan Montoya
Remember when Asst. U.S. Attorney Gregory J. Surovic opposed the release of convicted former Cameron County Attorney Armando Villalobos, partly because he said he had contacted several individuals in the community and leaked confidential FBI interviews with some local attorneys and judges?
Surovic said  Mando had not provided evidence that he won’t flee or pose a danger to any person or the community if released. But it was the other reason he gave that piqued peoples' interest.
"The government is aware that, during the period when defendant was pending sentencing, he contacted various individuals in the community and provided (FBI interview-summaries) that he had received in the course of discovery in his case, with the intent to harm individuals who had testified in his criminal case by spreading adverse information that would harm them in any political campaign that they might pursue,” Surovic stated in the government’s opposition to Villalobos’ release.
“The government submits that this is an improper use of these discovery documents and indicates a desire for revenge on the part of the defendant,” Survoic further said.
Whether it's revenge Villalobos seeks, or whether there is a leak at the U.S. Attorney's Office, we then confirmed that confidential FBI FD 302 (Rev. 10 6 95) interview-summaries were proliferating out there. In fact, we were given access to see one and we can confirm that someone (?) is mass producing them and making them available to select social media.
In this case, the 302 dealt with the questioning of County Court-at-Law # 3 David Gonzales and his interview with Special Agent Mark J. Gripka and FBI TFO Albert Toriz. This was the second interview Gonzales had with the FBI.
If  Survoic is correct, then the document was obviously made available to Gonzales' only opponent, Brownsville attorney Dolores Zarate or her supporters. They, in turn, apparently, mass produced it and disseminated it.
Who did or or why will probably surface as the FBI investigation into how those documents have been made available to just about anyone who would possibly want one.
El Rrun-Rrun was given one and after perusing through it, we noticed that there were some glaring mistakes in it, including the naming of some individuals who were not involved in the issue. It was a raw investigative document that was only supposed to be available to defendants and their defense attorneys. The note at the bottom of the page clearly states that they are not FBI "recommendations or conclusions" and clearly states that the information is not to be divulged or distributed outside the agency or the defense attorneys. We decided not to publish the confidential document.
But someone else did, and this Charro Days and at the SombreroFest, someone paid kids to place the flier above advertising a local blog as the site where one could read the "full report" on David Gonzales' wrong doings while he was an assistant DA."
Now, wrong doings is a strong word. It is almost up there with "crimes." It kind of makes you wonder why there have been no charges against Judge Gonzales, as his opponent would probably love to see. About the only issue related to Villalobos in the interview was the fact that Gonzales refused to pay Mando for his work as local counsel in a San Benito ISD case. Oscar De la Fuente had referred the case to Gonzales and later told him that it had been Villalobos who had told him to choose Gonzales. Gonzales never knew this until the cases were concluded and refused to give Mando a kickback on the settlements.
Then there's the issue of the scurrilous Brownsville Voice blogger allowing himself to be used by that candidate's supporters and gleefully provide them with a soapbox to deride their opponent.
(Of course, that blogger is no stranger to publishing falsehoods and inventing conspiracies. For a sample of the type of fare he deals in, simply click on the second box on top right [The Wightman Contra-Intelligence Files] and see for yourself. A word of caution, you might want to hold your nose as you read.)
We have been cautioned that as soon as the election cycle is over, someone will have to answer for the leaking of the FBI interview/report and its dissemination. To prosecute someone now would only give an impression that the probe is politically motivated.
For now, however, the people will decide this Tuesday whether a candidate who is allowing her supporters to go as far as printing these fliers and paying for their distribution is the type of barrister we need in that court.