AT CC C-AT-LAW #4, #5 DEBATE, NO SHOWS, FEISTY CANDIDATES AND ALLEGATIONS OF POLITIQUEROS USE

By Juan Montoya
It was billed as a debate for the seven candidates for the two new county courts-at-law created in Cameron  County.
What no one – not even the candidates expected – was that it would turn into a forum on judicial corruption and a give-and-take with no holds barred between the two candidates for the County Court-at-Law #5 Noe Robles and Jesus "Chuy" Garcia.
The debate was hosted at the Bernie Sanders for President headquarters at the old Democratic Women's Club on Boca Chica (next to Taco Palenque) and was moderated by none other than Jose Angel Gutierrez, the founder of La Raza Unida and a former county judge and academic
himself.
One person who attended shook his hand with a "Viva la Raza," and Gutierrez responded "La Raza Viva," then went on to give the ground rules for the debate and explain that his organization was supporting Sanders and that all Democrats were welcome.
Kimberly Dale also explained that the debate was also sponsored by her group, OP 10.33 Time for Change, Brownsville, whose billboards have appeared across the city and whose main financial sponsor is Brownsville native (and St. Joeseph graduate) Michael Joseph Hernandez III, who has vowed to reverse the poverty trend in his native city by October 2033.
At the outset, Dale said all the candidates had been contacted and that some had prior commitments and could not make it. She said some of the missing candidates had wanted to know the format in advance and to get a list of the questions they would be asked.
Court-at-Law #4 candidate Sheila Garcia Bence said she had not attended because "I was contacted about the debate on Tuesday evening. I did not get all the details till Wednesday. Had I been given enough notice and information I certainly would have attended."
Rene Gomez said he had other events for the evening and Carlos Monarrez was having a campaign event at the Steak and Fork Restaurant and Vino Bar and did not attend.
As far as the Court-at-Law #5 candidates, only Estela Chavez-Vasquez did not attend.
Without anyone to debate, Court-at-Law #4 candidate Dan Robles spoke about his 26 years legal experience and as a judge for 10 years before he left the bench for private practice, emphasizing his experience over his opponents in the area of guardianship and mental illness cases for which the newly-created court was established in the county.
"I have experience dealing with all people, and that's what it takes to be a judge," he said. "I have served honorably and sincerely."
Noe Robles – as did some of his supporters in the audience – focused on his 34 years of experience over those Garcia. He said that his record showed he fought corruption when he was  county court-at-law and that he had tried more cases than "you will ever try in your lifetime."
Grcia, in turn, said that although he had been a prosecutor and then went into private practice, he had bested Robles when thye met in court over a domestic abuse-family violence case and had "outlawyered him" by winning the case even when the victim didn't show up to testify.
"I researched case law and fund out that you don't need a victim to testify as long as you have an eyewitness," he retorted. "I outlawyered him."
This drew a stinging rebuttal from Robles who said that the U.S. Constitution required that a defendant confront his accuser and said Garcia took lessons from his former boss Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos.
"No victim showed up and the defendant wasn't given a chance to confront his accuser," Robles said. "That's wrong. That's what he learned from his mentor Villalobos."
Robles then said that the pubic record of a case Garcia tried as a defense attorney contained at least three affidavits that alleged Garcia had "extorted" money from a client on behalf of Villalobos and that in the defendant's appeal he stated that he had received ineffective counsel from Garcia.
"I've never had that happen to me," Robles said.
Garcia said that the allegations of ineffective counsel and that he had passed along an offer from Villalobos to his client that if he gave the DA $25,000 he would be offered probation or dismissal of the case had been considered by the appeals courts and that there had been "no finding of any wrongdoing."
In affidavits attached to the appeal, both Garcia and co-counsel Victor Ramirez denied asking Lucio or his family members for any money on behalf of Villalobos.

The files shows that attorneys Lilia Gonzalez and Joseph Moreno have been assigned to assist Lucio with his appeal.
The event was not without a dose of controversy with Citizens Against Voter Abuse (CAVA) Mary Helen Flores asking the candidates if any of them had hired politiqueros to help them in their campaign. They all said no, but the question brought forth an angry denial by Rafael Angel  Elizondo and his son-in-law Joey Garza who were both convicted of mail-voter violations.
"The district attorney indicted me and made me spent $5,000 to defend myself against nine charges," Elizondo fumed.
Garza was indicted and pleaded to a charge of illegal possession of a marked ballot.
Both were present at the debate and Flores said that they were there on behalf of Garcia, an allegation that the candidate has denied.
"It wasn't the DA who charged them," Flores contended. "It was the state of Texas."