Texa$ Wall $treet Journal: Will your loved one become an unknown or unborn heir to the HELLHOLE of a Death Trap Another Dares to Call Frivolous or Fraudulent? 
The first responder opens with a gush of emotional well unthought acrimony.
"What a crock! "The citizens of the Valley and Gulf Coast have been victimized by poor decisions in corporate boardrooms, favoring greed over safety. Citizens serving on juries in Rio Grande Valley and Texas Gulf Coast have done their constitutional duty, and in doing this most honorable service, have protected their fellow citizens from the unkind actions of others, and have made our country a safer place."
"Greed over safety"? Pot calling kettle black comes to mind, sheesh!
Leave it to a Corpus attorney of such questionable character to blame the corporations for the greedy nature of local attorneys and the populace. Everyone in this community is trying to hit the lotto, witness the thousands of fraudalent claims as such broken foundations and mold, and no, I am not a member of any organization, just not easily taken by a bunch of lies."
In concurrence with the first responder; it is agreed, the claim is a bit embellishing and heroically
ebullient nevertheless Mr Watts opening
averment,
("The citizens of the Valley and Gulf Coast have been victimized by poor decisions in corporate boardrooms, favoring greed over safety) cogently defines an element that bullies the average citizenry. An Actuary is a person whose work is to calculate statistically risks, premiums, life expectancies, etc. for the insurance industry and the emerging "bean-counting" approach to risk management in the Corporate Scheme. This "bean-counting" rings clear and is exemplified in the movie
"A Class Action" . The central premise of the film is roughly analogous to the controversy surrounding the
Ford Pinto and Mustang II.
Durrill v. Ford Motor Company
A rear end collision fire case in which a 1974 Ford Mustang II vehicle exploded into flames. The two occupants of the vehicle, Devary Durrill and Bonnie Watkins, died of burns. The accident happened in Corpus Christi Texas and was tried by Perry & Haas. Watts worked at the Corpus Christi plaintiffs’ firm Perry & Haas, where he trained in vehicle litigation and was involved in numerous suits against Ford.In the movie
"A Class Action" the auto manufacturer utilizes a "bean-counting" approach to risk management, whereby the projections of actuaries for probable deaths and injured car-owners is weighed against the cost of re-tooling and re-manufacturing the car without the defect (exploding gas tanks) with the resulting decision to keep the car as-is to positively benefit short term profitability.
WATT if it was your daughter, wife, son or another whom you hold dear in your heart; WATT amount is worth the life of a human being?
Basically the actuary crunches the numbers and calculates a probability. How many people will die and how many will be injured (if the defect is not corrected) The number of dead and injured are translated into a dollar amount which is weighed against the cost of re-tooling and re-manufacturing the car without the defect. The decision is made and carried out knowing that their product will kill people. They know their decision will take the life of an X number of unknown and unborn heirs to the HELLHOLE of a death trap to be sold as the dealerships assure the consumer that the product is safe.
The Ford Pinto, one of the best-selling cars of the 1970s, had a defective gas tank with an unfortunate tendency to burst into flames in rear-end collisions. Instead of fixing the Pinto, Ford lobbied against federal regulation affecting fuel tank safety. As part of the lobbying effort, the company prepared a cost-benefit analysis. According to Ford's engineers, it would cost $11* per car, or $137 million per year for the industry as a whole, to meet the rollover standard, while avoiding an estimated 180 deaths per year, along with an equal number of serious burn injuries and a few thousand wrecked cars.
Ford's cost-benefit analysis valued those lives at a mere $200,000 apiece. That number was calculated by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration at the request of the auto industry, mainly on the basis of lost wages, plus medical and legal costs and a small amount for pain and suffering. At $200,000 per head, 180 deaths are "worth" $36 million, not nearly enough to "justify" a $137 million expenditure. As Ford saw it, spending an extra $11 per car to fix the gas tank just wasn't worth it.
Despite Ford's lobbying, the gas-tank safety regulation was adopted. Ford responded by immediately, and inexpensively, making the 1977 Pinto safer. But the damage to the company's image had been done. The public realized that Ford had knowingly produced a dangerous car, leading to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of preventable deaths. Ford finally discontinued the model in 1980. --adapted from Priceless
WATT recourse do we have?
WATT will force
manufacturers to decide in favor of preserving the life of a human being?
The only way to convince a Corporate Giant is for the cost analysis to favor correcting the defect and the only way to do this is for the cost of a wrongful death to exceed the cost of re-tooling and re-manufacturing the car without the defect.
Yes, in the eyes of those who have not experienced the ordeal of losing a loved one from a defective products such as
Ford Pintos exploding upon impact, Firestone tires falling apart in the Texas heat, Chrysler minivans ejecting belted children due to poor door latches, or due to gross neglect by corporate chieftans, countless bad drugs pulled from the market because of no effective regulatory controls at the FDA and pharmaceutical companies decisions to place profits over patient's lives (Rezulin, Baycol, Fen-Phen, Vioxx), old ladies subjected to unnecessary second surgeries to replace tainted hip implants, 40% is a hefty amount to share with a lawyer.
On the other hand WATT choice will stop the recurrence of such preventable accidents? No amount of money can ever compensate for the loss of a loved one or for permanent injury?
Is it worth it for someone to pay you 60% of $500 million so they will hold accountable the ones responsible for deciding to
burn your daughter alive?
Ask Dusty Durrill, maybe you will see things differently?
“MIDDLE MAN” WHO FORWARDED BRIBE PAYMENTS TO WILLACY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SENTENCED
BROWNSVILLE, Texas – The man who arranged the delivery of bribe payments to two Willacy County commissioners in exchange for contract advantages in the construction of the Willacy County Adult Correctional Center (Center) in Raymondville, Texas, was sentenced today, U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced.
David Cortez, 72, of Laredo, Texas, will be serving a three-month term of imprisonment at a facility to be designated by the U.S. Bureau of Bureau of Prisons to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release during which Cortez will be confined to his home for six months. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen imposed the sentence this morning and further ordered Cortez to pay a $25,000 fine.
Two Willacy County commissioners -- Jose Jimenez, of Sebastian, Texas, and Commissioner Israel Tamez, 60, of Raymondville, Texas, were convicted in January 2005 for accepting bribe payments in exchange for contract advantages in the construction of the Center, which houses federal inmates. On March 24, 2005, former Webb County Commissioner David Cortez, who arranged the delivery of the bribe payments to these men, admitted to forwarding a series of payments totaling approximately $39,000 from a corporation involved in soliciting a consulting contract regarding the Center in Willacy County. The payments were in exchange for providing the particular corporation with advantages not available to others interested in, and competing for the consulting contract concerning the Center.
Former Willacy County Commission Israel Tamez was sentenced to six months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release and fined $25,000.
The charges against former Willacy County Commissioner Jose Jimenez were dismissed following his death earlier this year.
Cortez, who had been serving as a county commission for Webb County at the time of his conviction, resigned following the entry of his guilty plea in March 2005.
The charges filed against David Cortez and the two commissioners were the result of an investigation conducted by special agents of the FBI, the Texas Rangers, and the Willacy County Sheriff’s Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txs/releases/November2006/061121-Cortez.htm
WOMAN CONVICTED OF BRIBERY TO SERVE PRISON TERM
McALLEN, Texas – Paulita Nilo, 24, of Mercedes, Texas, was sentenced to prison for bribery of a public official, U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced today.
Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa sentenced Nilo on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006, to a year and a day in federal prison, without parole. Nilo was ordered to surrender to the U.S. Marshals on Dec. 29, 2006. The prison term will be followed by a two-year term of supervised release.
Nilo pleaded guilty in July, admitting that in May 2006, she approached a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer while he was off-duty and offered him an unspecified amount of money to facilitate the smuggling of an undocumented alien through the Progreso, Texas Port of Entry. The CBP officer reported the incident to his superiors. During the subsequent investigation, Nilo exchanged numerous telephone calls with the CBP officer concerning arrangements for the passage of an undocumented alien into the United States. Ultimately, Nilo paid the officer $300, and on that same day was immediately arrested after driving a vehicle through the Progreso, Texas Port of Entry, accompanied by an undocumented alien.
The charge against Nilo is the result of an investigation conducted by the Department of Homeland Security - Office of Inspector General and Customs and Border Protection. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Linda Requenez Rossborough.
November 9, 2006
FORMER COUNTY COMMISSIONER SENTENCED IN BRIBERY CASE
BROWNSVILLE, Texas – A former commissioner of Willacy County was sentenced to prison for accepting bribe payments related to contracts for the Willacy County Adult Correction Center in Raymondville, Texas, U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced today.
Israel Tamez, 60, of Raymondville, was sentenced to serve six months in federal prison and fined $25,000 at a hearing held this morning before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. Tamez has been permitted to remain free on bond pending an order from the court directing him to surrender himself to a prison facility to be designated by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Following his release from prison, the court has ordered Tamez to serve a three year term of supervised release.
The bribery charge filed against Tamez was the result of an ongoing investigation conducted by special agents of the FBI, the Texas Rangers, and the Willacy County Sheriff’s Department.
Tamez and former Willacy County Commissioner Jose Jimenez of Sebastian, Texas, were originally charged with conspiracy to commit bribery in a one-count information. Both men pleaded guilty to the charge in January 2005 when they admitted to agreeing to accept cash in exchange for voting to select particular corporate representatives and their companies in competition for the design, construction, financing, maintenance and management of the Correction Center. Tamez admitted receiving a series of cash payment totaling $10,000 or more from the corporate representatives selected to receive the contracts.
The charges against former Commissioner Jose Jimenez were dismissed earlier this year due to his death.
# # #
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txs/releases/November2006/061109-Tamez.htm
Nueces County
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project
Promoting Growth and Opportunity
A NUECES COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Public Involvement
Maximizing Community Awareness
Public Events Calendar
Press Releases
Publications
Contact Info
Photo Gallery
Message from Judge Terry Shamsie…
"In order to meet the demands of increased traffic and population, Nueces County has made road and bridge improvement projects a top priority. Investing in our county's infrastructure will create a solid foundation for new jobs, increase revenue for local government services and schools, and lighten the long-term tax burden on our residents. With a focus on traffic and safety improvements today, we increase our potential for economic, agricultural, and commercial growth tomorrow. Nueces County is committed to developing and improving roads and bridges that will better serve our communities."
What is the Nueces County Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program?
The Nueces County Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project is an endeavor to address the critical infrastructure needs of Nueces County. As the county expands its services to meet the growing transportation needs of its citizens, the county has made road and bridge improvement projects a top priority.
The project is an 18-month, 58 million dollar Capital Improvement Project adopted by the Nueces County Commissioners Court and funded by Series 2004 Certificates of Obligation. The project will address the rehabilitation of 280 miles of county roadways and the replacement of 39 bridges.
How does the project benefit Nueces County?
Building new roads and upgrading existing streets help reduce traffic congestion, decrease accidents and improve safety. Furthermore, good roads and bridges are essential to the economy and livability in Nueces County and help increase response time for law enforcement and emergency medical personnel.
Efficient roads and bridges will also promote agricultural productivity and transport of goods to the ports for the Nueces County farming and refinery industries - which makes up a significant segment of the local economy.
By adopting a Capital Improvement Program, Nueces County now has a valuable management tool for citizens, developers, businesses and planning committees who are interested in the development of all Nueces County communities. The Nueces County CIP reflects its community's assets, needs and goals and also provides guidelines for the potential for future growth and development of Nueces County.
What is the county doing to promote public involvement and community awareness about this project?
In order to enhance public involvement, Nueces County has hired Dos Logistics to coordinate all aspects of public relations as it pertains to the project. Together with Nueces County, Dos Logistics has developed a Public Involvement Strategic Plan that addresses community awareness implementation procedures, an 18-month timeline of events and strategic planning measures to maximize pubic participation and awareness.
The Nueces County Commissioners Court believes it is critical that information is disseminated to the public in a timely and efficient manner to ensure local leaders and citizens remain well informed about the progress of the project and how it directly affects their communities.
The project team has already initiated the public involvement process - targeting public and private media, citizen groups, City Councils and School Boards and community based programs, to disseminate information, acquire feedback and communicate reports on project status. From an official Press Conference & Tour to kick-off the commencement of the project to Community Meetings and presentations to local City Councils, Nueces County is committed to engaging the public in the information process throughout the entire course of the 18-month project. Click here for more information on Public Events.
How Can the Public Voice Support, Opposition or Concerns about a Road or Bridge Improvement Project?
For projects initiated through the CIP process, the county will hold quarterly public meetings with residents to discuss a particular road and bridge improvement project. Letters will be sent to property owners in the affected area inviting them to attend the public meeting(s) with county officials and others involved in the project. Nueces County will also issue news releases to the media and place legal advertisements in the newspaper to notify residents about a public meeting.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the project, answer citizens' questions and gather comments from community members about the design of the project. In addition to the public meeting(s), residents can voice their concerns or questions at the Nueces County Commissioners Court Meeting during Public Comments. Project Team members also attend each meeting to provide a project update to the Commissioners Court and to answer any questions that may arise.
http://www.doslogistics.com/nuecescounty/index.shtml
Re(1): In Defense of Solomon Ortiz Jr.
Posted on December 25, 2006 at 04:38:09 PM by Roddzilla
What's the big deal? MacCarthyism in El Defenzor? This is outright ridiculous. FDR had socialist tendencies, was he labeled? Communism in concept sound like a great idea. Human nature screws it up. Give this young man a chance and cut the labels.... Ricardo - It was great meeting you the other evening, I hope I didn't bore you with my rhetoric!
FACTITIOUS
Re(2): In Defense of Solomon Ortiz Jr.
Posted on December 26, 2006 at 02:17:50 AM by dannoynted1
you probably did!
Re(3): In Defense of Solomon Ortiz Jr.
Posted on December 26, 2006 at 03:41:53 AM by Roddzilla
Maybe I shoulda quoted some song lyrics?!? That always seems to work for you.....
Re(4): In Defense of Solomon Ortiz Jr.
Posted on December 26, 2006 at 05:26:50 AM by dannoynted1
well if the shoe fits.....
http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1167082689&user=defensornews
BND, Dannenbaum reach settlement
BY EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
The Brownsville Herald
February 15, 2007 — The Brownsville Navigation District board on Wednesday approved a settlement proposal with Dannenbaum Engineering Corp. of Houston, regarding a failed bridge project.
The district spent more than $20 million for a new international bridge that was never built. An internal BND investigation later revealed that most of the money paid to Dannenbaum was not justified.
Just how much of the $21.4 million spent on the nonexistent bridge will be recouped is unknown.
The terms of the settlement are being kept confidential until both parties sign the proposal. It will come back to the board for final action on Feb. 21.
Chairman Martin Arambula, vice chairman Luigi Cristiano and fellow commissioners Roy de los Santos and Carlos Masso voted for the settlement with Dannenbaum, the project engineers and managers.
Commissioner Peter Zavaletta voted against the move, saying, “I think it’s a bad agreement.”
The board majority immediately rejected a proposal from Zavaletta that the board should contact the Cameron County District Attorney, the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and U.S. Attorney’s Office, urging criminal investigations into the project to continue and reaffirming its full cooperation.
Zavaletta also proposed that interim administrator Donna Eymard and commissioners tell the law enforcement agencies that they would willingly serve as complainants in the event criminal charges are brought.
He said he feared that law enforcement agencies would think that BND was satisfied with all aspects of the project in reaching a settlement.
“This is too important to taxpayers,” Zavaletta said.
Fellow commissioners, however, indicated that Zavaletta’s proposal took them by surprise and said that Zavaletta should have brought this up in executive session before springing it on the board in public.
“In theory, it’s a great idea,” Cristiano told Zavaletta. Cristiano then admonished him, asking, “What message are you sending by blindsiding us?”
Commissioners agreed to discuss Zavaletta’s proposal at BND’s upcoming meeting Feb. 21.
The settlement brings an end to nearly two years of litigation.
BND paid Dannenbaum $15.4 million from 1997 to 2004.
Following an investigation by The Brownsville Herald, a spending study by BND special counsel showed that of the monies paid to the firm, $9.2 million were not justified, $1.7 million in possible “success” fees were in question, and the firm might have done about $4.5 million in engineering work.
In the midst of mediation efforts, Dannenbaum sued BND in the spring of 2005, claiming the district owed it $822,365.
BND countersued to recoup the millions paid to the firm, claiming breach of contract, self-dealing and fraud.
eperez-trevino@brownsvilleherald.com
Posted on Feb 15, 07 | 12:09 am
Printer Friendly Version | Email Article
COMMENTS
I completely agree with Peter Zavaletta. This is in light of the fact that the terms to this agreement are not available. WHY???? The money paid came from taxpayers so I think we should at least know what these terms are going to be before these other commissioners make a big decision like this. I want to congratulate Mr. Zavaletta for being a good commissioner and looking for our best interest.
Posted by: Miguel on Feb 15, 07 | 5:58 am
What are the Commissioners hiding? Who are they trying to get off? Are they trying to sweep this under the rug by reaching a 'settlement' then keep it secret? There'll be hell to pay if they try. Peter - go get 'em.
Posted by: RUNNER on Feb 15,