On Friday, May 7, 2010, El Paso Inc. "reporter" David Crowder called the live radio talk show hosted by Paul Strelzin on 1150 a.m. and announced, "I am not a Pervert." He sounded like Richard Nixon who said, "I am not a crook." Why would Crowder say, "I am not a pervert?" Well for one he is not too smart and secondly he was trying to defend himself vis-a-vis his own words. Crowder had sent me an e-mail at 3:21 a.m. the week before seeking a private meeting with me. The text of the e-mail can be read on the blog before this one. I published the e-mail in the El Diario of El Paso on Friday, May 7, 2010. Talk Show host Paul Strelzin read the e-mail over the air.

During the show, Crowder called in babbling a hundred miles per minute sounding like a nervous nut job on the brink of talking himself right off a cliff. He went on and on about this really exciting" story that he had written for the Inc. about City Representative Carl Robinson not having a Texas Driver's License, a story actually broken by the El Paso Times.

Then Crowder had to explain why he was e-mailing me at 3:21 in the morning, (the real point of the call) and the more he talked the faster he talked. He was on a rapid verbal vomit by the time Strelzin tried to do him the favor of shutting him down. Crowder ended his call with these words "I am not a pervert."--How eloquent and brilliant of this wordsmith.

The man was so desperate he had his step-daughter call the show. She sounds like a teenager. She didn't do him much good, poor girl. In trying to make her step-father's abnormal behavior look normal, she ended up making him sound even nuttier, depicting him sonambulating around the house watching weird sci-fi movies which apparently inspire him to do strange things. She even said that they needed to drug him and that they had told him to stop watching the sci-fi movies. Crowder sounds like just the kind of guy you want to have around the house with your teenage daughter.

Then Crowder's wife, Carmen Whiteman, (this would be wife number two), laughing maniacally, called the show saying she had no idea Crowder, her very own husband since all of 2008, had had arrests for DWIs (at least two). But no matter, she also said that the arrests were old, so they don't count. So which one is it? She knows about the DWI's, she doesn't know about the DWI's? One of the arrests was just two years before she and Crowder married. What does she think is "old?" So much for knowing your mate well before marrying him. So much for checking out the arrest record of a man you will be subjecting your daughter to live with.

Rumor has it that when Crowder left the El Paso Times, his buddies there gave him a breathalyzer kit as a gift. Nice knowing Crowder is out behind the wheel.

In the end, the whole Crowder family sounded bizarre on the radio and Crowder looked even worse than he did before he called Strelzin's. But Crowder says he is not a pervert, so it must be so.

Be sure and pick up a copy of today's El Diario of El Paso. On the back page of the "A" section is a half a page ad about Tom Fenton and David Crowder of El Paso Inc. and their lack of journalistic ethics. More interestingly in the ad is published, in full, a bizarre e-mail that David Crowder sent to me at 3:21 in the morning, April 24, 2010. It appears that David Crowder has "issues" that his wife may be unaware of. Also keep in mind when reading the e-mail that Crowder has twice been arrested for drunken driving.

Here is what Crowder wrote to me and what is published in the Diario today:

"Theresa

I was watching a silly science fiction movie a while ago. Vegging out, when the crazy thought occurred to me that I would like to meet you for a human conversation. We have been batting each other around for years, swirling in opposing orbits, picking up strange impressions of each other. I've never liked it, any part of it. I remember years ago, 2001 I think, Gary Scharrer wrote your sister a personal reply. It got him in a ton of trouble. I may be doing the same thing, but I don't have to worry about the Times management bitching me out now.

What I am suggesting is just a simple meeting and an off-time, off-the-record, candid conversation that might help put us on a different footing because we are both going to be around for a while...you longer than me. It could be here at my house or at yours or...I don't care, just not public, for a period of truce, if you will, after which the world will go on, perhaps slightly changedc.

David
dc"

Do legitimate professionals seek private, in-home meetings with women they don't know on a personal level? Would Crowder send such an e-mail to a man? Would you like such an e-mail sent to your wife or daughter by a reporter? If your husband did this, what would you do? Why not meet in public? What is wrong with a public place if your intentions are honorable?

Methinks Crowder also burned Gary Scharrer, former reporter for the El Paso Times.

I will also be posting a full copy of Crowder's e-mail as an attachment to this blog later.

Judge Yahara Lisa Gutierrez of the 65th Judicial District Court does not know the law and continues to disregard the law. Specifically, she does not understand the expungement law and the laws governing Free Speech. Expungement law enables you to have an arrest record destroyed. Free Speech law enables the private citizen to talk about the arrest, whether the records have been expunged or not. One would think that Gutierrez would be very well acquainted with expungement law since she came from the County Attorney's office, the office that handles these cases. Also one would think Gutierrez would know the expungement law since she loudly and proudly CLAIMS to have had her own arrest for drunken driving expunged. (Of course she has never produced an order documenting this claim, if one even exists, so who knows?)

We know Gutierrez doesn't understand expungement law and Free Speech laws because in less than two months she has filed two grievances against me with the State Bar of Texas and one against Stuart Leeds. The State Bar immediately dumped them all as frivolous. In the second complaint, the State Bar even wrote Gutierrez that she was carping about the same thing and that they had already dumped her complaint. They basically told her to let it go and to move on with her life, such as it is. What is Gutierrez' complaint? In the first complaint she whines that Stuart Leeds and I have carried a placard with the El Diario article that came out about her drunken driving arrest, an article that also includes a color photo of her magnificent mug shot. (see previous blog for photo). She also snivels that I dared to use the placard on my channel 7 debate for the County Attorney race (check that debate out on line. It is great). Most recently she complains that I published her arrest records and the Diario article on this blog.

In her ethics complaint, Gutierrez actually wrote, "Ms. Caballero has a blog on her website Theresacaballero.com (See Attachment A & B) Ms. Caballero's writings are reckless, false and misrepresent the truth. Further, in the blog dated March 22, 2010 there is a link under which a reader is able to retrieve the expunged police report of my 2000 arrest."

Gutierrez does not understand the rules of ethics vis-a-vis defamation law and she does not understand Free Speech. It is not unethical to expose a bad judge. In fact, it is our duty and it is our political process. Otherwise, how do you get bad judges like Gutierrez off the bench? As for "misrepresenting the truth," (whatever that means) Alexander Hamilton gave us the law that the Truth is a Defense.--Gutierrez will have a hard time suing anyone over her DWI since we can all see the records ourselves and she will have a hard time suing someone for claiming that she is lazy since her empty court room and her transfer order are evidence per se of her blatant derelicton of her duties.

What Gutierrez is saying is that Stuart Leeds and I do not have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to use newspaper articles about her. We do not have the right to comment on her empty court room (by the way, last Thursday, April 29, 2010, her staff told my process server that she would not be in to work until 10:00 a.m.). We do not have the right to expose her dereliction of duty when she transferred almost all of her family law cases to the 171st, effective her first day in office. She truly believes that we are not allowed to expose her shennanigans because now she is a judge. The rule of ethics she cites in her complaints is the rule that states that you may not disparage a judge. She thinks that we can't even talk about what she did before she was a judge. Interesting that Gutierrez believes that the truth is disparaging. What is also remarkable is that Gutierrez thinks that lawyers have fewer rights to free speech than non-lawyers. According to her logic, only a non-lawyer may expose her drunken driving arrest, her campaign lies, her lack of understanding of the law, her poor English and her sad and empty court room.

Of course Gutierrez also does not understand recusal law and has, on at least four cases, violated recusal law as we so aptly proved last week in front of a court room full of people. And once again, Gutierrez had to be forced off of our case because she cannot be fair and cannot properly dispense justice. It was truly embarrassing for her last week but then that is what happens when you don't do the right thing the first time around. As of the day before the hearing, she was claiming that she could be fair to Stuart and me and our client all the while she was filing a complaint with the State Bar against me. Is this a symptom of dishonesty, stupidity, megalomania or all three? This would be the ninth case Gutierrez has been removed from. All of our clients have either outright won since we have forced her off their cases (And yes, forced her. We had to pry her off them by taking a cleaver to her stubborn, manicured fingers just like we always do) or they have been placed in a position to win in the future by getting her off their cases and in front of a judge who knows the law and is not biased and prejudiced.

Hopefully the public takes note of this because in two and half short years you will have the chance to get her not just off your cases but out of the empty court room she presides over in between her manicures.

Sito Negron from the El Paso Inc. was present at last week's Gutierrez debacle. Still no word from him or the Inc. on Gutierrez' order transferring all of her family law cases to the 171st, an order that belies her campaign promises to the public. It also appears Sito Negron has been placed on the Theresa Caballero beat at the Inc.

Today is another day you will find Yahara Lisa Gutierrez' courtroom empty and devoid of legal activity. All those families living in legal limbo, clamoring, waiting, crying in frustration, scratching the walls, pounding the table, screaming that they need their family law cases heard, just got screwed again today by Yahara Lisa Gutierrez of the 65th Judicial District Court. Gutierrez has been cited in recently filed legal pleadings as being a "do-nothing, absentee judge..." But that doesn't stop Gutierrez from continuing to shirk her duties while cashing her paycheck. One of Gutierrez' staffers said this morning that Gutierrez cancelled her uncontested docket for today because Gutierrez is in "training." Training for what? Training on how to generate orders dumping her workload on another court? (See previous blog on Gutierrez with attachment of her signed order transferring her cases to the 171st effective her first day in office.) The El Paso taxpayer has to pay to "train" Gutierrez while she continues to screw them, and hard, by not hearing their cases. Gutierrez promised the voters that she would tend to their languishing family law cases. Gutierrez said she knew the families were suffering and she would end their misery if they would just give her their vote. And the families gave Gutierrez their vote. And Gutierrez then put on her taxpayer paid for silk robe and kicked the suffering families' cases to another court.

In the private sector, an employee who takes money for work she has not done would be considered a thief and promptly dismissed. In the private sector, an employee who promises to perform certain duties to get the job and then refuses to do them once hired, would be considered a fraud, a liar, and promptly dismissed.

If you want/need a divorce, child support to feed your children, restraining orders, custody of your children settled, visitation issues heard, good luck when it comes to Yahara Lisa Gutierrez. She is up for re-election in less than three years. You will then have an opportunity to shove her order dumping her cases in her face. Maybe one of these days, the El Paso Times will see the importance of what is going on and do a story. That however, would require intelligence, initiative and a sense of responsibility toward its readers and the community it "serves."--Keep in mind that the El Paso Times is one of the highest users of my blog.

What follows is an El Paso Times article titled 'Attorney's concerned that booths are bugged' published today April 17, 2010 on the front page of the El Paso Times. I spoke to Times reporter Adriana Gomez Licon before 3:00 p.m. yesterday. The article has some serious errors that I will address at the end. Please read.

County jail: Attorneys concerned that visitation booths are bugged

By Adriana Gómez Licón \ El Paso Times
Posted: 04/17/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

EL PASO -- Lawyers say they are worried that telephones at the county jail's visitation booths could be bugged, creating a possible government intrusion on privileged conversations with their clients.
But El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said Friday that no recording or monitoring occurred during visits to the jail by lawyers. He agreed to allow a full examination of the booths after county and federal public defenders said they wanted to investigate the sheriff's system.
Wiles said the visitation booths have no capability to record conversations and he has no desire to listen to what jailed clients are saying to their attorneys.
"I want the defense attorneys to have confidence that when they are speaking to their clients they can do so without fear of being recorded," he said.
Maureen Franco, who heads the federal public defender's office, said she still thought an independent inspection of the jail was a good idea.
"I think we believe him, but we will verify,"she said.
Franco said she planned to ask her bosses in San Antonio for approval to hire a surveillance expert to inspect the jail. She said federal and county public defenders would share the cost.
"We are the ones who are most affected because we have the majority of the cases," she said.
Jesus Olivas, an attorney in private practice, said he began to feel uneasy a few weeks ago about the jail being bugged.
Olivas said he heard from sources he would not disclose that privileged conversations
Advertisement

were being taped. Talks between a lawyer and his client are protected under the law and are supposed to be confidential.
"If somebody is listening, it's really dangerous," Olivas said.
Olivas confronted Wiles and told him he heard that visitation booths at the jail were bugged. Wiles was evasive, Olivas said.
"When I asked the sheriff, the answers were weird. That left me wondering," Olivas said.
After Wiles invited public defenders and bar associations to have technology experts examine the telephone booths, Olivas said he felt better.
"If the sheriff is going to go on record, there's nothing we can be concerned about," he said. "I know the sheriff is a good guy, and I trust his word."
Even so, Olivas said, he did not want to continue meeting clients at the jail. He said he planned to file motions to move the location of meetings with jailed clients.
Defense attorney Theresa Caballero said she already took that step. She said she filed a motion Thursday that would mandate that her client in a murder case be taken from the jail to a courthouse room for conversations with her. Her motion had not posted on the courthouse records system Friday.
Caballero represents 20-year-old Phillip Bobby Berryman, charged in the fatal shooting of a Chapin High School student in November. He faces two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity-murder.
"I cannot confer with him openly knowing or having the belief that the attorneys' booths are being bugged," Caballero said.
Caballero said Olivas, the public defender's staff and a source at the county jail have offered credible concerns of recording being done in jailhouse conversations.
"I consider it a piece of solid information, and I need to act upon it," she said.
In a famous case in the 1980s, the FBI secretly recorded conversations between an El Paso lawyer and his brother, also his client, at a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan.
The tapes became critical prosecution evidence in the 1979 murder of U.S. District Judge John Wood Jr. of San Antonio.
A judge ruled the tapes could be used as evidence because the lawyer, Joe Chagra, was indicted as a conspirator in the murder. Chagra pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 1982.
Adriana Gómez Licón may be reached at agomez@elpasotimes.com; 546-6129.


First error: The paragraph about the Joe Chagra/Judge John Wood, Jr. case was my quote. Adriana Gomez Licon knew nothing about the case until she called me. I told her that the bugging of a jail had occurred before and that there was a famous case where an attorney went to federal prison based on conversations he had with a client at a jail. She asked for the name of the case, etc., and I gave it to her. In her article, Gomez Licon mentions the Chagra case as though it came from her brain instead of attributing the quote to me. (False attributions or no attributions are a problem at the Times. In a February 2010 Times story, Reporter David Montero attributed his quote to me and in today's Times story, Reporter Gomez attributes my quote to herself).

Second error: I never told Gomez that "... a source at the county jail have offered credible concerns..." I have not spoken to anyone at the county jail, I have no sources at the county jail and I have never claimed to. I told Gomez Licon that an attorney from the Federal Public Defender's office said that they have a solid source at the county jail who has told them about the bugging. There is a big difference.

Third error: The article begins with lawyers are worried that phones at the attorneys booths are being bugged. I never said that. I said I was worried that the BOOTHS were being bugged. That is also what attorney Jesus Olivas was quoted as being worried about. Again there is a big difference, especially if there is going to be a sweep. It's not just the phones, it's the entirety of the booths.

Fourth problem: I told Gomez Licon that I had filed, the day before, a motion on behalf of my client Phillip Berryman. Gomez Licon writes that my motion had not posted on the Clerk's website as of the day after. If Gomez Licon was checking on my motion, why didn't she do what a reporter is supposed to do and go to the primary source which in this case would be the counter of the Clerk's office where they would have provided her with a copy of my motion file stamped on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 1:33 p.m? Gomez Licon claims to be checking but she never left the comfort of her desk.

Gomez Licon also left out that attorney Jesus Olivas is a commissioner on the El Paso County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Commission.

Who knows what else is wrong with the story.