Priscilla Villarreal, known as La Gordiloca, in her Dodge van, February 27, 2019.
Priscilla Villarreal, known as La Gordiloca, in addition to trucketa Dodge, February 27, 2019.
Priscilla Villarreal, known as La Gordiloca, as well as Truckette Dodge, February 27, 2019.
Priscilla Villarreal, known as La Gordiloca, as well as Truckette Dodge, February 27, 2019.
A few weeks after a federal ruling dismissed her case with prejudice, citizen journalist Priscilla “La Gordiloca” Villarreal appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His trial claimed that city and county officials violated their constitutional rights and retaliated. opposed her and wrongfully arrested her more than a year ago.
On May 27, Villarreal’s attorney, JT Morris, filed an appeal after U. S. Justice of the Peace John A. Kazen, wrote in a memorandum and an order that Villarreal had established several claims in his trial.
Although the court recognizes the profound importance of the rights guaranteed to citizens, such as (Villarreal) in this case, the court in the end decided that (Villarreal) could not succeed over applications for qualified immunity and other arguments raised through the defendants’ motions,” the memorandum says.
On August 31, Morris filed a letter on behalf of Villarreal stating that his “allegations and allegations involved the fact that government officials were enforcement a law for a valid purpose, but without retaliating against a brave citizen journalist. “
The brief explains cases in which she was harassed through the Laredo Police Department and even appoints Webb County District Attorney Isidro “Chilo” Alaniz.
“The district attorney . . . took note of Villarreal’s criticism,” the car says. “In fact, Alaniz took Villarreal behind closed doors to let him know that he did not like the complaint from his office.
The brief also explains a case in which LPD agent Laura Montemayor threatened to remove Villarreal’s camera while filming a public crime scene. Morris added another case in which Agent Alfredo Guerrero tried to force Villarreal to quit his daily job and then harassed her even more after filming. Warrior.
“And even though the accused leader of the Laredo police, Claudio Treviño, was aware of this harassment, he encouraged him to arrest him,” the brief says.
He added: “The City Council has done the same. One thing is one thing: these officials and the people intended to quell the Information of the Villarreal. “
Villarreal was arrested via the LPD in December 2017 after posting on Facebook the call of a suicide victim and the call of a user who died in a car accident. public ones.
In March 2018, district court judge Monica Zapata Notzon found that Villarreal had been denied due process because Texas status qualified him with third-degree abuse of overly vague official data, found prestige unconstitutional, and downplayed the crime rates that opposed it. to the Villarreal.
In a summary of his argument, Morris asserts that effective self-government in the press and other citizens seek out and publish data on public affairs, adding to ask officials for data and publish what they say.
“That’s why the First Amendment asks public servants not to abuse state law to harass hounds who simply do their job,” the report says. “And that’s also why the First Amendment asks public servants not to abuse state law to suppress their critics. “
The brief reiterated that the defendants’ investigation and Villarreal’s arrest violated the First Amendment by targeting her under Texas law because a Laredo police officer had presented facts about a public suicide and a fatal turn of fate after Villarreal asked about the incidents.
“In other words, government officials, if retaliated against, oppose a citizen for exercising their First Amendment rights,” Villarreal briefly says.
He added: “Villarreal detailed how individual defendants knew that, like Villarreal, local media asked and knew data from LPD officials on topics such as crime scenes, investigations and traffic accidents. “
The brief concludes by asking the appeals court to overturn Kazen’s dismissal by claiming that defendants do not have qualified immunity to investigate and arrest Villarreal for doing what other hounds do every day by asking the culprits for data as a component of the exact disclosure of the data.
In response, Alaniz and Jacaman’s lawyer, J. Eric Magee, submitted a letter on 30 October stating that rejection of Villarreal’s claims was accepted.
“Specifically, the District Court decided that Villarreal’s first amended lawsuit would not allege any facts that could simply succeed over alaniz and Jacaman’s entitlement to qualified immunity,” the brief states. In addition, the District Court held that Villarreal had not claimed enough facts to support its claims under the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments. “
The letter notes that Kazen’s memorandum and order rejecting Villarreal’s claims that the basis for his detention and prosecution deserves to be maintained for the publication of data than for data collection.
“Throughout his presentation, Villarreal continues to deliberately misinterpret his arrest, the movements of police officers in the city of Laredo and the investigation of criminal rapes, adding Jacaman’s review of the affidavit of the arrest warrant,” the brief says.
Villarreal falsely stated that she had been arrested for nothing more than regime denunciation and that her request and data collection was legal.
“As determined by the District Court, Villarreal alleges that, at the highest means of local communication, it requested and obtained data related to the law enforcement of LPD Baeza’s spokesperson and other LPD officials,” the brief states. “The allegations in the apprehension order The affidavit involved receipt of data from Baeza, but from Goodman. “
Contrary to Villarreal’s argument that no moderate official may have discovered probable cause under the law, he does claim that he never gained any economic advantage by reporting police data on Lagordiloca’s Facebook page.
He adds that Villarreal readily admits that he enjoys a loose meal from appreciative readers and charges a fee to sell local businesses and has used his Lagordiloca Facebook page to solicit donations for the new gadget needed to continue his citizen journalism.
In addition, the District Court found that the Villarreal “did not make a credible inference that no moderate officer could have simply concluded that Factor’s data was public. “
“Therefore, the District Court found that a moderate user might have believed that the data the applicant had obtained from Goodman was data that the public sometimes did not have access to and whose disclosure was prohibited by the [Texas Public Information Act] at the time. . the applicant won the data,” the brief adds.
Finally, the writing through Alaniz and Jacaman indicates that the District Court noted that the fact that others had published truthful and public data on a subjective subject does not mean rather the conclusion that other hounds were in the same scenario as Villarreal.
Its purpose is to ask the Court of Appeal to up up up up to Kazen’s order and verify the rejection of The Villarreal’s requests.
The city of Laredo recorded a letter in reaction to Villarreal’s writing, but it was not easily accessible. Webb County told the court that it would not record a brief, according to online court records.
No hearings are scheduled in the judicial register.