|
Analysis of Llano City Attorney
Bovey’s 3/26/14 Llano News Article
|
|
Sewell Analysis
|
Bovey Statement
|
Reference
|
|
1.
Misrepresentation of fact & law – Notification (properly serve)
is the central issue I have with
Judge Garrett and the reason for the appeal. My petition for
judicial review was filed under
§211.011 which specifically does not
require notification and Bovey knows this argument.
See
Appellant Brief and
Judicial Misconduct Complaint for details.
2.
Inflammatory Language –
Word properly used
unnecessarily to denigrate me and my cause by suggesting I did
something improper
which I did not.
|
Sewell did not
properly serve any
defendants
|
¶2
line 2
|
|
3.
Misrepresentation of fact – I did not name any
defendants as shown in petition cover[1].
It was Judge Garrett who wrongly changed my case style in his
Order. I included this error in my
Appellant Brief and even filed a
Motion to Fix Case
Style to fix the
court record. It is my contention, as articulated in
Judicial Misconduct Complaint, that this insistence on naming
defendants was collusion with Judge Garrett with the intent to
deny a judicial review and avoid admitting the illegal acts
claimed in my petition.
4.
Inflammatory Language –
Enumerating the non-defendants was solely used to engender
public opinion against me with all the friends of those listed.
This is also unnecessarily embarrassing for those listed as
defendants in the 3rd Court of Appeals. There was no
other reason to name these Llano citizens.
|
Mr. Sewell then filed an
appeal of the District Court’s order to the Third Court of
Appeals in Austin naming
the City of Llano, Mikel Virdell, Brenton Lewis, Dianne
Firestone, Letitia McCasland, Marcy Methvin, Todd Keller, Jeanne
Puryear and Toni Milam
as defendants.
|
¶3
line 1
|
|
5.
Misrepresentation of fact –This statement is the
antithesis of the truth. After my Appellant Brief, I was
finished presenting my appeal and Bovey needn’t have done
anything.
Every document I filed with the
3rd Court of Appeals was in response to a Bovey filing. My
Appellant Brief was all that was necessary for
my appeal. My appeal was purely to address errors by Judge
Garrett in denying a writ of certiorari based upon the need to
notify participants. This was a procedural disagreement with
Judge Garrett and no action was required by Bovey. Any arguments
he had with my complaints in the Judicial Review petition could
have been made at the District Court level and saved the
citizens of Llano $18,000. Please see the Appeal section of the
Document Index to see all the filings in
context.
This complete distortion is the crux of the article whose intent
was to show that I was responsible for the $18,000 in his legal
fees.
6.
Inflammatory Language – Bovey uses the credibility of
the 3rd Court of Appeal’s
reveals to validate
his next, false, statement. Another cheap deception trick
stating a falsehood at the beginning of a paragraph, “every
document filed”
and then putting exceptions obscured at the end, knowing most
readers will skip the end of a long paragraph.
|
A review of the case information and pleadings on file with the Third Court of Appeals
reveals that every
document filed by the City defendants (referred to as
“Appellees” by the Third Court of Appeals)
was filed in response to
an action taken by Mr. Sewell. … except Motion to Dismiss
and Motion for Damages
|
¶3
line 2
¶3
line 3
|
|
7.
Misrepresentation of fact – The 3rd Court of
Appeals dismissed Motion for Damages, as shown in the
Court Notice, in which Bovey claimed
frivolous. This notice was published by the court before
Bovey wrote the article so he knew that it was NOT frivolous.
The appeal was successful in that Judge Garrett had refused any
hearings on his disposal prior to the appeal and then the Court
said he hadn’t properly disposed - thus Garrett had to have a
hearing, which is what I wanted from the appeal.
8.
Inflammatory Language – The word frivolous in a non-legal
context has a different meaning to ordinary citizens - trivial
and
not having any serious purpose. My complaint said that three laws were
broken and 79 people had lost their rights. In the 1½ years this
has been going on, Bovey and the City have not addressed the
three broken laws – because they are guilty. The City continues
to break some of these laws. This is hardly trivial and is very
serious.
|
his frivolous appeal
|
¶3
line 3
|
|
9.
Misrepresentation of fact – The response brief was
optional and not forced
by me. The issues in the appeal were purely procedural error by
the judge prior to any action required by the City. It surely
didn’t call for $18,000 worth of effort. Lack of jurisdiction
due to improper disposing would have been found by the Judges
without Bovey’s $18,000 worth of assistance.
10.
Inflammatory Language – The word
forcing says that I,
alone, am responsible for the City spending $18,000 on legal
fees when the truth is Bovey didn’t have to do anything.
|
forcing the City to prepare and file a response brief.
|
¶4
line 1
|
|
11.
Misrepresentation of fact – I never, ever said that “the
City should never respond to his arguments” and yet Bovey says
that position is “clearly documented.” To the contrary, a
judicial review is a request to the City to answer my arguments.
Bovey avoided that for 1½ years.
12.
Inflammatory Language –
The word clearly is
used to make the citizens believe that his false statement is
irrefutable and since no citizen will read the filings, the
false statement stands.
Bovey uses
the credibility of the 3rd
Court of Appeals to give validation to his false statement.
|
Mr. Sewell’s position, as clearly
documented by his numerous filings with the Third Court of
Appeals, was that he should be allowed to sue the City and
the City should never respond to his arguments,
|
¶5
line 1
|
|
13.
Misrepresentation of
fact – It was Bovey who brought in irrelevant issues from the
start. My
Appellant’s Brief was the only document I
intended to file. That document ONLY describes the issues of
Judge Garrett’s procedural errors and nothing else. I did not
mention any of the legal violations in my judicial review
complaint. The irrelevant first line in his Bovey’s
Appelle’s Brief brings in the arguments from my
petition and argues that “proper notice was given.” I had to
respond to that and all his other irrelevant issues.
14.
Inflammatory Language –
Saying my arguments were
irrelevant leaves the laymen readers with the assertion that
I went off on a tangent and wasted Bovey’s time and taxpayer
funds.
|
Mr. Sewell’s arguments
were irrelevant to the
issue appealed
|
¶6
line 1
|
|
15.
Misrepresentation of fact – This statement is completely
false. All of my arguments were based on fact and most were
based on law. Even my assertion that Judge Garrett completely
disposed of my judicial review was based in fact, had legal
references, and was a reasonable conclusion based on Judge
Garrett’s actions. It was Judge Garrett who erred.
16.
Inflammatory Language - This statement will leave the
reader with the impression that all my statements are
unfounded and I did
not base any argument in law, which is not true. Readers will
also think that my original petition complaints were unfounded
when they were not even the subject of the appeal.
|
Mr. Sewell’s
arguments were unfounded and had no basis in law
|
¶6
line 1
|
|
17.
Misrepresentation of fact – I argued positions with legal
and factual statements, as he did. This is normal and expected.
The judges decide who is correct. This statement says that is
abnormal and I should not have done that.
18.
Inflammatory Language - This statement, using
fought each and
despite will leave the reader with the impression that all
my statements were wrong
despite Bovey’s case references. Readers will also think that my
original petition complaints were wrong and properly contested
by Bovey’s case references, when they were not even the subject
of the appeal and not addressed at all.
|
Mr. Sewell
fought each of these positions
despite numerous
Texas cases cited by the City supporting its arguments.
|
¶6
line 2
|
|
19.
Misrepresentation of fact – The Court did not “held” or hold.
That was not their judgment. That was not their ruling. That was
not their opinion.
That was not their decision. That was not their mandate. That
was a footnote in the
opinion that said the “We
observe.” Besides, my argument that
§211.011(g)
specifies that City Council is synonymous with Board of
Adjustment in Llano as described in my
Motion for Rehearing and is properly addressed by the District Court.
20.
Inflammatory Language – This statement, again, tries to
use the credibility of the Court to substantiate his incorrect
and misleading statement.
|
The Court
held “that because Sewell has not challenged actions taken by a
board of adjustment, his claims are not governed by Texas Local
Government Code section 211.011.”
|
¶7
line 3
|
|
21.
Misrepresentation of fact – This is the most prejudicial
and misleading statement of all. The Court found that Judge
Garrett did not properly dispose of my judicial review. That was
my position, albeit for different reasons. The Court’s judgment
forced Judge Garrett to have the hearing that I requested in my
appeal Prayer. Hardly a desperate battle since I got what I
wanted.
22.
Inflammatory Language – The statement
clear holding agreeing
with the City’s position would lead readers to believe that
the Court agreed with the City’s position on illegal zoning
changes since that is what the citizens know and care about.
Bovey’s phrase desperate
battle is pejorative, makes it seem like I am doing
something wrong, and makes it seem like the City is the victim.
|
Despite the Third Court
of Appeal’s clear holding
agreeing with the City’s position, Mr. Sewell continues to
fight a desperate battle
|
¶8
line 1
|
|
23.
Misrepresentation of fact –I filed a
Motion for Rehearing and a
Motion for En Banc
Reconsideration which are
normal rebuttals to an opinion and are supported by the rules.
Those motions asked for clarification. I did not
accuse the Court of
anything. I questioned, which
is a normal activity. I actually think my arguments were
sound and based in law. But they were at least reasonable and
not accusatory.
24.
Inflammatory Language – Bovey’s phraseology of
accusing
the Third Court of Appeals is highly prejudicial and makes me and
my efforts seem trivial, petty, and ludicrous.
|
Mr. Sewell is now
accusing the Third
Court of Appeals rather than the City, of misinterpreting the
Texas Local Government Code and misunderstanding the Texas
judicial process in general
|
¶8
line 2
|
|
25.
Misrepresentation of fact – Again, the City is not being
forced to do anything. This was a procedural dispute with Judge
Garrett which would have had the same outcome without Bovey’s
$18,000 worth of insight and had nothing to do with the illegal
acts of the City.
26.
Inflammatory Language – Bovey’s phrase
forced to incur additional
legal costs make the reader believe that I controlled
the $18,000 in legal fees.
|
therefore the City has
fortunately not been
forced to incur additional legal costs in defending its
position in this case
|
¶8
line 3
|