Special to El Run-Rrun
In July, Gustavo De Leon was the one speaking for the family and "negotiating" for a $1.2 million settlement with his colleagues on the city commission, the city manager and city attorney, the latter two his subordinates which he could vote to hire or fire.
Now his story has changed.
In a recent Facebook reply, Gustavo says his immediate family has “stepped out of the law suit” and that the City will have to deal with the other two owners of the Vera-De Leon Trust.
Does that mean, by his own admission, that the dispute is still alive?
He may no longer be the person out front, but by his own words, the City is still dealing with the remaining owners over the same property.
So the real question is simple:
If Gustavo says he and his family have nothing to do with the lawsuit anymore, did they also give up any financial interest they may still have in the property?
Because stepping away from the fight is not the same thing as walking away from the money. Will he still expect his cut?
10 comments:
After comparing this entry with the underlying KRGV reporting and Texas defamation law, I would not say that this particular post means Gus De Leon will “win big time.” There are some potentially vulnerable passages, but there are also significant defenses available to the blog.
KRGV does substantiate an important part of the background: De Leon identified himself as the property's executor, said city crews entered without permission, said he contacted the city attorney, filed a police report and sent a cease-and-desist. KRGV What I could not independently substantiate from KRGV is the blog's much more consequential statement that De Leon was personally “negotiating for a $1.2 million settlement.” Another local report specifically noted that claims that the estate sought a large settlement and that De Leon personally negotiated with city officials had not been established by a released demand letter, appraisal, contract, audit, or court filing at the time of that report. The Rio Grande Dispatch
That distinction matters. The quotation marks around “negotiating” don't automatically protect the blog if an ordinary reader would understand the sentence as asserting that De Leon actually sought or negotiated a $1.2 million payment.
The ending is considerably safer for the blog because it is framed largely as questions: “did they also give up any financial interest?”, “Will he still expect his cut?” But merely putting an implication into the form of a question isn't necessarily an absolute defense if the entire publication communicates a false defamatory factual implication. Texas courts look at the publication as a whole and how an ordinary reader would understand it. Texas Judicial Branch
There is also a major obstacle for De Leon in a defamation suit: he is a Brownsville city commissioner, and the article directly concerns his position and dealings with city government. Texas Supreme Court precedent requires a public official in circumstances covered by the rule to establish actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth—not merely that the publisher got something wrong. Texas Judicial Branch
So the issue I'd concentrate on isn't the sarcastic ending. It's this sentence:
“Gustavo De Leon was the one speaking for the family and ‘negotiating’ for a $1.2 million settlement with his colleagues on the city commission…”
If documentary evidence shows that statement is substantially true, the blog is in a much stronger position. If there was never a $1.2 million demand or negotiation involving De Leon, that sentence becomes much more problematic—but De Leon would still face the demanding actual-malice requirement.
And one other point: even if De Leon ultimately prevailed, a large judgment is not automatic. Texas law has specific procedures concerning correction/retraction requests and restrictions affecting damages.
Stop with this bullshit Montoya, their are bigger fish to fry. Find another crook there's plenty of them.
Tell me why I should care, Cantina Boy.
This is FU Brownsville. Never Forget.
BS, he’s still suing the city, insider information right there!
the asphalt millings road looks like it was paved with caliche, someone should ask GDL who paved it? What company or contractor did that? The wear and tear of that land points to the fact there has always been a road there. If the city has paved that road before, what makes it different this time?
Browntown idiots crack me up! You all are getting ass raped by everyone. Gus, LNG, SpaceX .Do you all regret voting for Gussy? His political career is over before it started LOL! Just wait until Steve the narco starts fucking you ! Pass the popcorn !
Well it is a gay community!
I think the corruption is beyond our control, our current administration has been using sophisticated propaganda to easily manipulate the masses to vote and legislate in the interests of corporations. Farmers, Ranchers, Truckers, Food Processors, ect. . .They're all feeling the FO in FAFO.
This is the new gilded age, any hydrologist, agriculturalist, and environmentalist will tell you Brownsville is experiencing environmental racism at an unprecedented scale. This is unfettered, get rich quick, unregulated corporate power.
Also, I don't care if oil companies, were defrauded and lost money. I'm glad they were screwed, good! Keep it up Steve!
Exactly, let’s clean the mess and call it a day…. Say sorry and shake hands… but no! He wants his money.
Absolutely, that’s next, the best part is that Steve hid as a public official at the port where he wasn’t in the public-eye, things will be different for him this time around. Let’s see how he handles internal audits and the feds!
Post a Comment