CVNA to Demand Other Neighborhood Assocs Pay Their Legal Fees!

So the Cielo Vista Neighborhood Association had an emergency meeting last night because they just realized that being sued sucks and it's very expensive.  The very lightly attended event produced some shocking revelations. 

CVNA President, Mark Benitez is also the head of the association of neighborhood associations - he's like the king of the professional society for kings.  Rumor has it that Benitez is going to require other neighborhood associations pay for his personal legal fees and that of the other defendants in the Patriot Place debacle along with the legal fees of the CVNA itself. 

His idea, I have heard, is that the other neighborhood associations have a common interest in what the CVNA has done and should pay to protect them since they might get into the same trouble at some point in the future.  It's the whole "you scratch my back now and I might, or might not, scratch yours later."

Each of the neighborhood associations not named "Cielo Vista Neighborhood Association" would be assessed a few hundred to a few thousand dollars and that money would be used to pay Benitez's and his friends' legal fees. I'm sure this is going to go over very well with the other associations.

This guy wants to run for office and he's already proving he has no regard for OPM (other people's money) - the future is not bright, but it's expensive.

Comments

[Carl Starr]

i see the city did not change the proposed assoc ordinance...a suit will take alot of work...the only way I see the city can do this in light of Citizens United is that the city is essentially making a assoc of 100 persons a arm of the state...in concert etc as the Bill of Rights does not extend to city itself or its subparts...if so then of course that opens up a whole other bag of worms re liabilty etc this theory of arm of the state has been upheld in some tx open records requests finding some assoc subject to the tx public info act.

[David K]

Carl,

you're so wrong it's unbelievable that you don't see it.

The city can make rules on what groups they officially recognize and those rules can include provisions against recognizing groups formed for a political purpose.

[Carl Starr]

Its vague/overbroad...I am working the suit up for the 28th as soon as they gavel it law...I dont know that iam wrong...my email is open and these free forum boards are live, other than David no one is telling me iam wrong...I do know civil rights fights can be lonely and that rights 'belong only to the belligerent cliamant.' You can't barter away a right.

"The Supreme Court's admonishments in Citizens United that "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence" and that "[l]aws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,'" 130 S. Ct. at 898.

[Oscar de la China]

You dumb f**k...You don't know the difference between a defendant and a plaintiff.

[Mark]

There's no way in hell that Benitez can get the other NA's to pay the legal fees for the CVNA. All agenda items for the Neighborhood Coalition where Benitez sits as chair are facilitated by the City. Bill Lilly will nip this in the bud. If this idea is in fact true, it clearly shows that Benitez is a complete wack job

[David K]

Oscare de la China,

my bad - I fixed it. I know the difference, just transposed the two when writing. You misspelled "fuck" so I wouldn't be pointing any fingers.

Thanks for reading - ps. you can keep changing your name, but your IP remains the same and it's hilarious that you're so addicted to me. You need to get help. Seriously - you scour my blogpost for hours looking for mistakes so you can validate your hatred of me and I'm sure the people in your life wish you'd pay attention to them more - in fact I know they want you to pay more attention to them. Quit me - do it for your family and friends.

[Carl Starr]

Looks like I was right davidk re 1st Amendment...it appears CC is going to rework ord re Neighborhood Assoc and political speech.

[David K]

Carl,

you weren't "right" about the first amendment. In fact, you're still dead ass wrong and someone from the city emailed me today to make sure I tell you that fact and that's not the reason they are changing the wording. They are rewording it because Acosta and Holguin are in the minority and the neighborhood assocations lobbied the the other members of council and city staff. The members of the neighborhood associations convinced every council member not named Holguin or Acosta that they should be able to be both political and civic at the same time and still receive special recognition from the city. In fact - what has happened in effect is that they have now made these groups specifically political and they will likely have to file with the Texas Ethics Commission as a special purpose political committee form here on out.

So you were wrong - Carl. As usual.

[was at council]

Sorry stoner carl, but you didn't listen good or you weren't at the meeting. They very well could still ban them from being a political group using different clearer wording.