El Paso-centric info and commentary from the Center of North America

NPT City: Jaime v. Jaime

ITEM UPDATED 2 p.m. March 19, 2009: Abeytia announced that he is filing an ethics complaint against Perez.

Jaime Abeytia, aka The Lionstar, has an interesting post on his Lionstar Blog.

He is raising issues about Jaime O. Perez, the chief of staff for County Judge Anthony Cobos.

He refers to blog postings with Perez’s name on them, as well as Perez’s appearance at City Hall recently to help a candidate file paperwork, and writes:

There is a strong appearance, at least in my humble opinion that Mr. Perez is conducting campaign activities while on the clock.

Given the internet activity and the appearance at city hall, both during normal work hours, it entirely reasonable to ask for an accurate account of Mr. Perez’s time. Especially given the amount of money tax payers spend on his salary and several nagging reports of Mr. Perez being at The Hush Bar and other locations during regular county business hours.

Read the posting here.

I’m sure there is more to come on this. They’re both smart, aggressive and not about to back down from a challenge.

Sito Negron


Written by newspapertreeelpaso

March 19, 2009 at 10:47 am

Posted in Uncategorized

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I find it interesting that minutes that minutes after kittystar’s hack job everybody else in town has it posted on their rags. So iguess that instead of just kittystar I ak this of all of you:

    Are you going to have the FBI check the timing of the posts on Susie Byrd’s blog? Huh?

    Kittystar just hacked up an enire post on how public officials should use the inernet more often. When are they supposed to do this genius? On their free time? Or are you going to pay them extra to do this? When are they supposed to update tweeter, blogs, websites, youtube, myspace, facebook, etc.?

    kittystar expresses his displeasure with Emma Acosta on not updating her tweeter account… why should she? So some clown like him will selectively sic the FBI on her.

    While we are at it let me tell you jop’s work hours… he is salaried, there are no hours you clowns.

    Riddle me this… If Susie Byrd goes to a forum after hours are you advocating we pay her extra? If Susie leaves work 5 minutes early do we dock her paycheck?

    No you goofball these people are salaried profesionals. They work until the job is done. be that 10 minutes or 10 hours.

    So no elected official or public employee can endorse anybody ever again unless they get paid hourly and are off the clock. Can a salaried or elected employee vote? Because that is the ultimate endorsement isn’t it? Can they attend a fund raiser? can they go to church? Lest they promote some religion?

    Answer me this, jop in the capacityof his position at the county sends a press release to the El Paso times or he posts the same press release on the El Paso Times website… what’s the difference? Let me help you… none.

    One last thing, since kittystar is searching for jop’s IP adress I suspect he is looking for mine too.

    just so everyone that comes here knows that if you say something the El Paso Media doesn’t like they will try and find you.


    March 19, 2009 at 11:33 am

  2. Sito… does Susie Bird pay for having her blog advertised here on The newspapertree?

    Just a question.


    March 19, 2009 at 11:55 am

  3. I wish people would post without name calling particularly when they are hiding behind a psuedonym.

    Ken G

    March 19, 2009 at 11:55 am

  4. Ken G.

    Go peddle that crap to that bunch of shut-ins on the strelz’s site.


    March 19, 2009 at 11:57 am

  5. Looking forward to meeting you on the 27th

    Ken G

    March 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  6. Perhaps Mr. Friegas should read a little more closely. What posted in the piece about podcasting, etc was a suggestion that they do more city-related activities on their city website like covering their community meetings and weekly messages to the community. That would clearly be related to city business. I’m not sure how you didn’t understand that. In Mr. Perez’s case, we are talking about CAMPAIGN activities during COUNTY time. This is clearly different. If Mr. Perez were issue a press release relative to his duties as the COS for Judge Cobos, that would be within his duties. However representing a political action committee is NOT within his capacity as COS and does violate Section X Paragraph A of the County Code of Ethics.


    March 19, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  7. Ken G.

    Why? What are your plans for me? are you going to beat me up you 7th. grader.

    There you go el Paso…

    Not only will they try and find you… they will threaten you and try to a hurt you.


    March 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  8. Wel Sito?

    Is Newspapertree being compensated by Susie Byrd’s District 2 blog?

    Is she posting on city time?


    March 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  9. Sito, if you do not know what I am talking about the link is on the right side of this page.


    March 19, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  10. This discussion is insane. People unable to differ without personalizing. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about issues, but this is out of hand.

    In the end, do you really think after the elections, the candidates give a damn about your comments or for that matter, unless you gave a sizable contribution, even remember you?


    March 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  11. No Rey, you are right, they don’t care.


    These people have been calling people names for as long as I can remember. They call you names, they threaten you.

    As soon as you call them someting back.. when they can’t handle you’re views… what do they do? They call you worse names and they threaten you.

    They search for your IP adress. Right now they are looking for jop’s and mine… how long before they look for your’s?


    March 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  12. This is a big city, problem with it is, there appears to be a lot of small town politics. Very obvious in methods,motives and very amateurish.

    People, if you really want to grow, learn to disagree with out personalizing. I came from an area where people had fierce debates and then had coffee afterwards. Just politics, nothing personal. No different from two lawyers arguing a case and then after it’s over, shooting the breeze.

    We all have the same goals, just a different idea of how to get there. There is plenty of room for different views. NO one person or party has all the answers.


    March 19, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  13. Rey, if they stopped at name calling that is one thing. But go against the crowd that David K. pretends to speak against… and they will try and put you in jail.


    March 19, 2009 at 2:30 pm

  14. Johnny is right. All the message boards in town snitch on who posted what. It’s a fact.


    March 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  15. I have to agree with Rey. We should be able to voice our opinions in a civil and adult manner. I am 65 and 100% disabled according to the VA. I am still able to defend myself but I am not about to pick a fistfight with someone over their political opinions.

    Ken G

    March 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  16. That’s a shame to hear that. So much for all the speechs of freedom and Democracy. No wonder EP has a problem shaking its being viewed in the same light as our neighbor, that has a major problem with it’s officials. Although we are trying to save them from themselves, it appears we have become just like them.

    Well, if what you say is true, I will keep a toothbrush and lawyer’s phone number with me at all times.

    My picture must be right up there next to Bin Laden, based on what you’re telling me. And that would explain, phone calls not being returned


    March 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  17. why the fuck am I being brought up?

    I’m merely pissed that this hasn’t been covered properly in the media.

    Some moron assistant chief files her 500th frivilous lawsuit and it’s news… and this isn’t?

    David K

    March 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  18. Hey jop has a blog!


    March 19, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  19. Ruff, 858 F. Supp. 1546 (1994) (striking down as vague and overbroad a ban on city employees engaging in “political activity” because “city employees are left to speculate as to what conduct their employer might consider ‘political'”).

    The term “political activity” as used in the City’s policies at issue here, purports to prohibit a broad spectrum of activity, a substantial amount of which is protected. Both provisions extensively and substantially interfere with a City employee’s clear First Amendment right to express a personal opinion on political subjects and candidates. See Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 561 (all persons [**38] covered by the Hatch Act are free to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates). The court finds that there is a realistic danger that the City’s policies will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections and, thus, holds that the provisions are unconstitutionally overbroad on their face…..unconstitutionally vague when it uses “terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application.” Connally v. General Constructing Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 70 L. Ed. 322, 46 S. Ct. 126 (1926). Such a provision violates due process of law because it neither affords fair notice to potential violators nor provides standards for enforcement. Id. Statutory vagueness is especially problematic when it chills the exercise of First Amendment rights. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372-73, 12 L. Ed. 2d 377, 84 S. Ct. 1316 (1964)….Government employees interest in commenting on public elections is a strong one and strikes close to the heart of the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659, 96 S. Ct. 612 (1976) (political speech rests at the “core” of First Amendment); Monitor Patriot v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35, 91 S. Ct. 621 (1971) (First Amendment “has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32, 21 L. Ed. 2d 24, 89 S. Ct. 5 (1968) (“Competition in ideas and governmental policies is at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms.”). The First Amendment reflects a national commitment to the idea that debate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wideopen.” See Waters, 114 S. Ct. at 1886 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964)). [**20] 7 Moreover, the public has a vital interest in hearing these comments and in the promotion of public debate regarding local elections and the public issues which directly and powerfully affect their communities. See id. at 1887 (government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their informed opinions).

    Carl Starr

    March 20, 2009 at 10:54 pm

  20. 865 F.2d 1517; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 550 “Courts have found the term “political purpose” in state statutes unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, and have declined to construct a narrowing reading.”

    Carl Starr

    March 20, 2009 at 11:20 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: