WILL BOBBY LERMA SACRIFICE HIMSELF AND FAMILY LEGACY FOR SAENZ?

I have been patient.  If the Court of Criminal Appeals denies John Doe's Petition for Discretionary Relief, I will file an immediate rehearing en banc.  The main issue has been resolved by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in favor of John Doe.  So if a panel of three ignores the precedent of the Court, it will be ripe for rehearing.  The petition for Writ of Certiorari is mostly ready to be filed with the US Supreme Court. 

Bobby Lerma's decision to breach his duty to John Doe will cost him his license and possibly jail time.  He will be sued for violating the rights of a disabled person, and malpractice.  Lerma was retained thereby making it easier to sue him for malpractice.  This will be his legacy.  If he is competent, he will go with counsel to the FBI and turn states evidence. 

Bobby Lerma knew to get the con done, he had to place John Doe before Gabby Garcia while I was at the doctor.  This meant not creating a charging instrument.  You cannot plead to a criminal charge without a charging instrument. The Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals has resolved this issue in favor of John Doe.

He lied.  He is so far gone in terms of any sense of ethics he fails to understand I have his text messages which verify he conspired against John Doe. 

The no charging instrument issue is solid.  If the initial panel refuses to follow the Court's own precedent, a Motion for Rehearing is justified.  It is ready to go.

But there is a second issue with Lerma, he coerced his client into committing felony perjury on the mental health issue.

The law again is so clear, to the point as a matter of law Bobby Lerma violated his duty to his client.

    In Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986), the Supreme Court found that an attorney in a criminal trial has a duty not to allow client to give perjured information. The ethical duty of an attorney not to allow perjured info supersedes a duty of zealous advocacy. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured evidence at trial.

          The right to effective counsel typically entails that the attorney engaged in zealous advocacy for the defendant. However, there are exceptions to what attorneys may do for their defendants. In United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 1993, the Court determined that when a client wants to engage in perjury, the client's attorney is required to compel the client not to commit perjury, even if the perjury can benefit the client's outcome. The Court found that an attorney who does not do so has violated the attorney's duty of candor and good faith required to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

    I am down to maybe 4 hours a day.  The fatigue has come back with a vengeance.  I am sitting here waiting on the call to tell me what is next in ruling out the prostate cancer.