NO LIMITATIONS: “What If I'm Caught?”

Julia, 43, often wakes up in the middle of the night sweating profusely. She has recurring nightmares of immigration agents running after her, catching her, handcuffing her, embarrassing her in front of friends and bringing her to jail.

An estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants are in the United States. Julie is one of them.
She came to the United States out of desperation eight years ago leaving her irresponsible often jobless playboy husband in the Philippines. Her school teacher’s starvation salary hardly made ends meet. She acquired a B-1 visitor’s visa by attending a teacher's convention in Chicago – then overstayed.

She went though the usual adjustment difficulties: the sense of alienation, painful homesickness, lonely winters, lying about her immigration status for low paying menial jobs. She missed her parents and regularly sent them money. Her father died of cancer without seeing her. She wept the whole night feeling guilty that she could not visit him.
Loneliness caused her to date a married man who left her when she got pregnant. She raised her 5 year old son Michael by herself.

Her job situation eventually improved as she was smart and hardworking. She did housekeeping, cooking and secretarial work for a well to do couple who paid her well and provided room and board for her and Michael.

She generally lives a lonely life, afraid to socialize, afraid to tell her few friends about her immigration status, afraid of the police (fearing that they might report her to immigration authorities) and tends to be paranoid of strangers.
The only solace to her lonely life is her 5 year old son Michael, and the Church she goes to every Sunday where she socializes with a few Filipino friends, sharing experiences and news from the homeland.

She consulted with me explaining her situation and felt guilt about violating U.S. immigration laws. She asked: “What if I get caught?”
“Before anything else,” I told her, “Immigration law is civil law and not criminal law. You should congratulate yourself for having the courage to try and find a better life for yourself and your loved ones. Not your fault you were born in a poor country.”

For her and others like her – this is my advice, if caught by Homeland Security agents:
Don’t panic. It’s not the end of the world. Be nice and polite to the arresting officers. They’re just doing their jobs. Ask respectfully if you can talk to your lawyer first before answering any questions.

Tell them you have a minor child that you need to attend to and ask if you can be released without bond. Assure them you will not run away. They will likely grant your request because of your child and place a monitor electronic bracelet on you. If not, your lawyer can bond you out.
You have a right to a hearing before an Immigration judge and present applicable defenses. It’s not the case that an alien can immediately be deported after arrest.

If you’ve been here a total of 10 years and have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent or child and have no crimes – you might qualify for an immigrant visa under the Cancellation of Removal law which an immigration judge can grant.

Congress most likely will also approve the amnesty bill hopefully this year allowing undocumented immigrants to legalize their stay.
So – just be cool. Live life one day at a time, let tomorrow take care of itself. Don’t be afraid. Hope.

-----------------o------------------
Atty. Laguatan’s legal expertise is officially certified by the California State Bar. He does immigration, personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice and complex litigation. He is rated as among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America by a magazine for lawyers. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd., Ste. 516, Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, E-mail: laguatanlaw@gmail.com

FROM THE CAPITOL: Remembering Larry Itliong

EVERY year, on March 31, the day of his birth, Cesar Chavez Day is celebrated in honor of the late farm worker, civil rights activist, and leader. Together with farm labor activist, Dolores Huerta, they founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA), which later came to be known as the United Farm Workers.

While Cesar Chavez may be a more iconic figure during the farm worker movement in south and central California, there was another man who stood alongside Cesar Chavez who fought wholeheartedly for farm worker rights. Larry Itliong, a migrant farm worker from the Philippines, was a labor leader in Alaska and California, where he founded the Filipino Farm Labor Union.
Filipino farm workers have contributed invaluably to the farm worker movement and to the creation and accomplishments of the United Farm Workers. In the early twentieth century, through the recruitment efforts of employers, more than 100,000 men leave the Philippines to work in the fields of Hawaii, and the mainland United States, through ports in San Francisco and Seattle. By 1930, Filipino farm workers made up approximately 15 percent of the all California farm workers, nearly all asparagus farm workers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, and approximately 80 percent of the Salinas Valley lettuce crop workers.

As the Filipino farm worker population increased, so did the demand for labor leaders to step up and help their fellow kababayans. Larry Itliong rose to the occasion, along with fellow Filipino labor leader Philip Vera Cruz, to form the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee.
Under the leadership of the newly formed Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, Filipino farm workers initiated the Delano Grape Strike on September 8, 1965 in the fields of Delano, California. What started as a fight for fair wages, became the most important date in farm worker history in California and the United States.

In response to the strike, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, under the leadership of Itliong, joined forces with Cesar Chavez’s National Farm Workers Association to create the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO. Following Chavez, Itliong became the 2nd Vice President of this powerful committee. Through the efforts of the United Farm Workers, a contract was awarded to the grape growers after five long years of fighting for labor rights.
Even years after this victory, Itliong and Chavez were a powerful team in protecting labor rights in fields across the state. In 1977, at the young age of 63, Itliong passed away. Chavez described Itliong, as “a true pioneer in the farm worker movement.” And that he really was. His fight for the rights of the working people and immigrants were so powerful that his impact is still felt today in the ongoing battle for social justice.

Itliong is an unsung hero to all workers and to all the communities. It is unfortunate that someone who played such a significant role in a major labor movement in history is often overlooked. Itliong was such a great communicator and leader, and deserves greater recognition for his work.

His leadership and work is a true example of the power of Filipino activism and empowerment. Let us continue to remember his work and rich account of the farm labor movement; educating others and our future about the significant role of Itliong and that played by the Filipino people.

STREET TALK: Wanted; A hero for Santa Banana

It has been often said that there are 90 million cowards in the Central American Republic of Santa Banana. You see, where the citizens of other countries would immediately take to the streets the moment their national leaders steal, restrict civil liberties, trample human rights, or, otherwise, abuse their powers, the people of Santa Banana just complain, feed exposes to the print, TV and radio commentators, and organize “activist groups” with fancy names like Black-and-Blue Movement.

Their most daring action is usually a protest march that is immediately dispersed with a few blasts of fire hoses or the bone-cracking swings of police batons. In Santa Banana, the motto of the activists – otherwise known as “leaders of civil society” – is: “He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.”

Not surprisingly, Gloria En Excesses Deo, president of Santa Banana, feels free to bend, twist, reconfigure and otherwise break the law whenever she pleases. She knows that the 90 million cowards of Santa Banana will yelp and bark. Like dogs. But never bite. Like toothless dogs.
Perhaps it is the Catholic upbringing of the people of this country, once dominated by Spanish friars. The friars hammered into the heads of Santa Bananans that the road to heaven winds through Calvary, that silently and uncomplainingly accepting abuse is a virtue, and forgiving others their trespasses is the key to sainthood.

It took Santa Banana almost four centuries before they could get organized enough to mount a revolution against Spain. But it took the martyrdom of one man to light the fuse of the Santa Banana Revolution.

Then, when they were forced under the heel of a dictator, it took almost two decades to get them mad enough to run the dictator out of town. Again, that fury was unleashed by the assassination of a charismatic leader. They called that uprising Banana Power.
Almost a decade and a half later, inspired by Banana Power and irked by the shenanigans of the incumbent president, they declared, “Once more with peeling!” and staged Banana Power Two.
But that one was less a revolution than a double-cross hatched by Vice-President Gloria En Excesses Deo against the incumbent president, with the help of military officers and politicians who had not received their share of the take in the rackets. In other words, Banana Power Two didn’t take courage and heroism. It just took some very clever schemers to lead the masses by the nose.

And so ruled Gloria En Excesses Deo. And, boy, has she lived up to her name. Excesses in electoral cheating. Excesses in stealing from the national coffers, overpricing, extortion, bribery, smuggling, and overall graft and corruption. Excesses in extra-judicial killings and the muzzling of the media. Excesses in cover-ups and in frustrating the justice system. Excesses in manipulating and controlling the legislature and treating its members like dogs. Lap dogs. Excesses in using the military and the police as accessories to illegal acts.
This year, Gloria En Excesses Deo has really pushed the envelope to the edge. Early on, it was obvious that she relished power and found the term limit imposed by the Santa Banana constitution a pain in the behind. With some equally ambitious politicians, she schemed to have the constitution amended to enable her to keep the reins of power, not as president but as prime minister.

That was foiled by a citizenry that had gathered enough guts to protest. But protesting was as far as they were willing to go. Once the police and the military brandished their batons, exploded their tear gas and let loose their fire hoses, the citizens dispersed. It took other ambitious politicians, the enemies of Gloria En Excesses Deo, to foil the plot.
This year is an election year. A new president is supposed to be elected – the replacement of Gloria En Excesses Deo. Confronted by the harsh prospect of relinquishing the presidency at the end of her term, the Queen of Excesses has set into motion a multi-faceted plot that is awesome in its intricacy and brilliance.

The ultimate objective is to keep her in power. But the moves are more complicated than anything Boris Spassky or Bobby Fischer could have concocted.
First, she has placed her most trusted lap dogs in control of the armed forces and the police. One senior police commander who declared that he would not follow illegal orders from the president has been consigned to the dog house.

Secondly, she has set up the Electoral Commission with an automated system designed to fail. Thirdly, she has let her propaganda experts leak the rumor that there could be a failure of elections – thereby, preparing the 90 million cowards of Santa Banana to resign themselves to that eventuality.

Fourthly, she has made a deal with one presidential candidate, who has a record for honesty and integrity as scandalous as hers, and an obsession to become president at all costs, as intense as hers. This has given the impression that she is prepared to relinquish the presidency. In chess, this is called a gambit.

Fifthly, she is running for Congress in a district that she controls. One of her sons, who had to give way to his mother, is running for congress as a representative of the poor and underprivileged. It’s so outrageous, nobody has found the adjectives to adequately protest the farce.

According to this option, she will become speaker of the house of representatives and take over the government in the event of a “failure of elections.” This will lead to an amendment of the constitution and her installation as prime minister.

And what about the presidential candidate that she has made a deal with? Well, all he wants is to make money and carry the title of president. He will have both. But the real power will remain in the hands of Gloria En Excesses Deo.

And, finally, she has rigged the Santa Banana Supreme Court, loading it with lap dogs who will sit and bark at her bidding and confirm the legality of any illegal action that she may decide to take in order to stay in power.

What, you may ask, will the 90 million cowards of Santa Banana do about it?
Right now they’re being bought off by the presidential candidate with whom Gloria En Excesses Deo has made a deal. They are also being cowed by the military and the police. And they’ve been told by the most influential leaders of Santa Banana media that being raped is not too bad if you learn to enjoy it.

Does that mean that Gloria En Excesses Deo will get away with her intricate game plan?
Perhaps. But then again, the 90 million cowards of Santa Banana could gather some courage.
This could happen if the cowards in the military and the cowards in the police finally look at themselves in the mirror and realize their cowardice. Or, maybe, they will look into the eyes of their children, whose future they are selling down the river, and be overcome by shame.
It takes a long time, much persecution, a heap of insults, and a flood of abuse for the 90 million cowards of Santa Banana to get mad enough to fight for their honor and dignity. Gloria En Excesses Deo has calculated that it won’t happen while she’s around.

But, maybe, there is someone among the 90 million who isn’t a coward. Someone who has the courage, the nobility, and the heroism of the two who sparked the Santa Banana Revolution and Banana Power One.

Someone who will take the words of the Santa Banana national anthem to heart. Yes. Wanted. A hero for Santa Banana.

(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

NO LIMITATIONS: Should commissioned polls be outlawed

By Attorney Ted Lagautan ESQ

Polls commissioned (read paid for) by politicians are about as credible as a straight - jacketed wacko who believes in purple unicorns. Politicians commission polls on the theory that if the results make them look good – the public’s sheep mentality kicks in. It’s an effective bandwagon effect tactic because there’s a lot of sheep out there.

In commissioned political surveys, the objective is to make the candidate look good. That’s why unfavorable survey results for commissioning politicians are as unlikely as snow in the Sahara. Pollsters can ensure a predetermined foreseeable result by simply custom designing the questions and selectively picking a target group of respondents to accomplish their purpose. Say – I ask 1200 Filipinos from General Santos: “Would you rather watch a Pacquiao fight or watch boring grandstanding senators on TV?” The answers are easily predictable. See? Thomas Mann of the highly respected independent Brookings Institute think tank: “When a group with an agenda releases a poll, you should not take it seriously. There’s ample opportunity in the design of questions to provide findings that are consistent with a group’s general orientation.”

Pollsters have perfected the art and science of manipulating outcomes. “Tell us what you want – we’ll deliver.” says one pollster. Yes they can - if the price is right.

Buying desired poll results is not quite as easy as buying a loaf of bread. In third world countries, there are few established polling companies. Politicos compete to get their services. The guy with the fat wallet usually wins.

A candidate commissioned survey is simply a more sophisticated form of marketing gimmickry - a con game on the public if you will. One pollster demystifies it: “We provide something better than advertising agencies - very effective advertising that does not look like advertising.”

But polling companies can also provide valuable data. They often engage in legitimate objective surveys which are commissioned or paid for – but where no hidden agendas are involved. For example, gov’t agencies might commission them to do demographic studies or to determine the incidence of certain diseases in particular areas. These objective surveys add to pollsters’ credibility and respectability. The more respectable, the higher price they command for politically instigated commissioned surveys.

Commissioning politicians should also not be faulted. Since polling companies are not regulated and commissioned polls are legal – they simply utilize this open opportunity. Given that commissioned polls or surveys mislead the public – should they be outlawed?
Here’s my take on the issue.

I don’t think commissioned polls should be outlawed. If conducted honestly with no cloaked agendas and the true purpose is fact finding – they can provide valuable data. Outlawing speech – whether written or oral – tends to create a prior restraint or inhibition on other kinds of constitutionally protected speech. Polls are a form of speech. In a free society, the expression and competition for all kinds of ideas should be given full encouragement and free rein so that the best ideas emerge to be absorbed by the citizenry - increasing the probability of implementation. Good for all.

However certain rules should be instituted - so that the use of commissioned surveys are not abused and used to mislead the citizenry. These rules relate to methodology, to changing realities and the interpretation of results. Aside from the results, polling companies should provide additional information as to: 1. Who commissioned or paid for the survey? 2. Which persons did the poll? 3. How they went about it? 4. What questions were asked, and in what order? 5. How large was the sample? (the larger, the more accurate) 6. How random was the sample? 7. When was the date of the sampling? 8. Were the questions conducted on the phone, the internet, by mail or in person?

This information should be made available online.

Polling companies have public responsibilities and ethical standards should apply. They should also advise the public that today’s voting preferences do not necessarily predict the future. They only reflect the respondents’ minds on the polling date. Preferences change. While these rules are not yet in place and enforceable – the best guideline for voters regarding commissioned surveys is to view these with skepticism. Instead, carefully study the issues and the candidates’ qualifications to be a responsible voter.

Two recent Philippine presidential polls were commissioned by the second leading candidate who was down by over 30 points. His commissioned poll results showed the gap closed to 13 points and then to only 8 points. Hmm….really?

Instead of spending millions to counter said candidates’ poll presentations – I respectfully suggest to the other poll-challenged candidates to simply reprint this article. Distribute as many as possible. It will inform and educate voters – help them to choose good leaders. You have my permission to do so – without charge. It’s a more effective counter strategy than costly commissioned polls. Donate some of your savings to hungry children maybe. Thanks.

----------o----------

The California State Bar officially certifies Ted Laguatan as an expert/specialist lawyer. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. A magazine for lawyers rates him as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd., Ste.516, Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, 101 California St. Ste. 2450, SF, CA 94111 E-mail: laguatanlaw@gmail.com

FROM THE CAPITOL: Safety on the Streets

By Senator Leland Yee

In high school science classrooms, students are taught that data becomes fact only when it can be tested. Experiments are set up with control groups and variables, and through testing and retesting, one ends up with valid and reliable information.

Unfortunately, when it comes to public policy, such experiments are often unfeasible. In a state of 38 million people, there are so many variables associated with any piece of legislation that it is rare that we get a neat determination of how laws affect human behavior. However, in January of 2009, one such experiment began on San Francisco’s 19th and Van Ness Avenues, and now it is up to us to learn from it. In a city with an already abnormally high rate of pedestrian traffic accidents, 19th Avenue was one of the most dangerous streets, with nearly 600 pedestrian collisions taking place from 2003 to 2007, resulting in 10 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

Through the years, we have successfully changed the speed limit on 19th Avenue from 35 to 30 mph, installed pedestrian countdown signals at traffic lights, improved signage, and added bulb-outs to shorten the distance for pedestrians at several crosswalks. Despite all these changes, we continued to have an unacceptably high fatality rate on 19th Avenue.

In 2008, after five years of hard work, we were finally able to get a double-fine zone on 19th Avenue when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1419 — a bill I crafted with the help of several San Francisco community members. The combination of the fines and the improvements resulted in a substantial drop in traffic accidents along 19th Avenue, and there was not a single pedestrian death in 2009 — a result of which all San Franciscans can be proud.

As part of the compromise to get the double-fine zone on 19th Avenue approved, the Senate Transportation Committee insisted that we also include a double-fine zone on Van Ness Avenue, another dangerous corridor in our city. However, thus far, the improvements that have been made on 19th Avenue have failed to materialize on Van Ness Avenue, and as a result we have not seen a similar statistical change.

The fine increase cannot be used as a magic bullet, but rather as a piece of a larger strategy to improve traffic safety. It is my hope that the successes we have had on 19th Avenue can be repeated on Van Ness, and my expectations are that we would then see similar progress.

Good public policy is never made in a vacuum. It is carefully crafted with input from the community that will be affected by it, and when it fails to meet the needs of that community it should be retooled until it does. While it may be too early to say anything with absolute certainty regarding this law, what we have seen thus far is encouraging and that increased fines are an important piece of the puzzle needed to help save lives.

STREET TALK: Consumisyon on elections

By Greg Macabenta

If you think that the Commission on Elections has been purged of multi-million dollar hamburjers and million-vote phone pals, look again. This constitutional body is still infested with characters who cannot tell right from wrong.

When Congress passed the Dual Citizenship Law, Republic Act 9225, many of us who had become naturalized citizens of foreign countries welcomed the opportunity to reclaim our Philippine citizenship. The day the law became operative, I was with the first batch that crowded into the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco to become a Filipino citizens again.

At last, we would have an opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage, to participate in the choice of the leaders of the land of our birth, to contribute to its emergence from poverty not simply with our money remittances but also with our skills and other assets.

But we celebrated too soon. Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos – the Hamburjer Man, star of the NBN/ZTE multi-million dollar scandal – ruled that dual citizens could not vote in the 2004 elections. Led by Loida Nicolas-Lewis, then chair of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), several of us appealed to the Supreme Court to nullify the ruling.

On August 4, 2006, the high court ruled in our favor, decreeing that the Dual Citizenship Law was meant to “to “enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos.” Unfortunately, the decision came too late for us to vote in the Garcified presidential contest, where a million votes were added on to an Arroyo victory, but it allowed us to help bring in a new batch of senators – and kick out a lot of undesirable ones - in the 2007 polls.

Now comes the 2010 presidential elections, a monumental event in the continuing struggle of the Philippines to extricate itself from a fate of corruption, incompetence, crime and poverty. Like the invigorated American electorate who voted in large numbers in the last US presidential elections in their desire for “change they could believe in,” overseas Filipinos have become motivated to actively participate in the selection of the new Philippine president to ensure that all vestiges of the graft-ridden administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are ejected and changed. Since the passage of the Dual Citizenship and the Overseas Absentee Voting Laws, the response of overseas Filipinos, particularly those in the US, had been embarrassing, to say the least. We had lobbied long and hard to have both laws passed by Congress, but when they were finally signed into law, only a handful of otherwise qualified Filipino voters took the trouble to register, and fewer still bothered to vote.

A January 19 story filed by GMA News gave these dismal numbers: “A total of 589,830 overseas Filipinos registered for the 2010 elections. According to the poll body’s statistics, 224,884 new voters were added to the list of 364,946 active voters from the past two elections. In addition to the land-based Filipinos, a total of 21,097 seafarers will also be allowed to vote in the 2010 elections.

“Since the OAV was signed into law in 2003, figures have not been encouraging. In the 2004 national elections, only 360,000 of the more than four million qualified overseas Filipinos had registered. Of this figure, only 65 percent or 233,092 actually voted.

“In the 2007 midterm elections, at least 145,000 more overseas Filipinos registered to vote but only 81,732 cast their ballots. Data from the Comelec indicated that the countries with the most number of overseas Filipino voters are Saudi Arabia with 111,549; Hong Kong, 95,355; and the United States of America, 40,430.

“In terms of geographic regions, the Middle East and African nations have the most number of overseas voters, with a total of 225,148. The Asia Pacific, meanwhile, has 215,548; Europe, 61,294; and North and Latin America, 66,743.”

Among the reasons for the poor response are provisions in the law that make it difficult to register and vote. But what has made a bad situation worse is the fact that the Comelec has not really done enough to encourage voter registration. In fact, it has actively discouraged registration in the forthcoming elections by setting the deadline a full month earlier, August 31 instead of the end of September.

In a case filed before the Supreme Court by Raymond Palatino on behalf of Philippine voters, the high court directed the Comelec to extend the registration period by 69 days. Encouraged by this, a FilAm from Boston, Maritess Salientes Bloom, filed a petition with the Comelec in Manila asking for an extension of 28 days for overseas voters. This effort was supported by NaFFAA and actively pursued by Loida Nicolas-Lewis and Rodel Rodis.

For some reason that defies logic, another overseas group, the Global Filipino Nation, headed by Vic Barrios, filed its own petition for extension but only asked for two extra days!

To further complicate matters, a private conversation between Lewis and a Comelec official, to the effect that the Bloom petition had been “approved,” was prematurely announced as a fait accompli. The celebration was cut short when the Comelec subsequently announced that the petition had, in fact, been denied.

As in the past, the leaders of NaFFAA are preparing to appeal this adverse decision to the Supreme Court. According to Rodis, the rationale given by the Comelec for denying the Bloom petition do not hold water. The Comelec avers that giving an extension of 28 days would upset the work schedule of the poll body, require more personnel and resources and, in effect, jeopardize the conduct of the elections. Rodis scoffs at this.

According to Rodis, “The Comelec rejected our petition because to grant it ‘would wreak havoc to the Commission's over-all preparations for the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections. Petitioner must bear in mind that to set an additional registration period now would have a rippling effect to our Commission's schedules, which are already tight as it is.’
“First of all, for the information of the Comelec, overseas voters do not vote in ‘Local Elections’ just in case the Comelec was not aware of that. How would extending the registration period to overseas voters ‘wreak havoc’? The work would be done by the local consular officials who still have the voters registration machines. What kind of ‘rippling’ effect would it have? The Comelec made the same arguments against the Palatino petition and yet none of the ‘rippling effects’ it warned against materialized. Comelec would not need to hire any new workers to register the overseas voters.”

Added Rodis: “The Comelec's decision actually presents us with the opportunity to put the Comelec on trial for its gross incompetence and for completely ignoring the needs and interests of the overseas absentee voters.”

We can only hope for the best. The Supreme Court could rule in favor of overseas Pinoys – but past experience warns us that the decision could be made AFTER the 2010 elections. In such a case, the Commission on Elections would have succeeded in frustration our efforts to participate in the choice of the new president. It should be renamed, Consumisyon on Elections.
But we’re not entirely helpless. Those who have already registered should vote. And those who haven’t and can’t register should actively campaign for honest and competent candidates and direct their friends and families in the Philippines to do likewise.

Otherwise, heaven help the Philippines. We might yet end up with a new president named Money Villarroyo.

(gregmacabenta@hotmail.com)

NO LIMITATIONS: Mayweather Exposed

By Ted Laguatan ESQ

If Floyd Mayweather were not a boxer, he might have been a magician or politician or con man. Well, he tried a con on Pacquiao – so he’s both boxer and con man. Many ask: “Why doesn’t Pacquiao just accede to Mayweather’s demands for blood tests?”; “Is he hiding something?”; “ Why did he refuse these demands?”

Without any proof whatsoever, Mayweather and his co-conspirators have accused Manny of using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). He also insists on specific blood tests which no boxer has ever imposed on another boxer. State boxing commissions are there to regulate testing protocols.

In previous fights after stringent tests, Manny emerged squeaky clean. Mayweather knows that Pacquiao’s skills, speed, power and stamina stem from continuous improvement, discipline, rigorous training and excellent physical and intelligence genetics – not PEDs.
So what’s Mayweather’s gimmick?

Here’s my take on this:
Mayweather remains undefeated not only because of his boxing skills but also because of his ability to psyche out opponents. His hero is Muhammad Ali who taunted opponents before and during a fight – a strategy meant to screw up their minds and foul up their training regimen and mindset in the ring. Among other tactics, Ali riled opponents with insulting monickers: Sonny Liston (“Big Black Bear”); Joe Frazier (“Gorilla”); Leon Spinks (“Blacula”); Floyd Patterson (“Rabbit”). Notably, after his fights, Ali maintained good relations with opponents.

Following Ali’s lead, the cunning Mayweather brewed a devious covert stratagem to beat Pacquiao: Beat this dude by messing up his mind. Accuse him of using roids and other PEDs and insist on blood tests. He’ll absolutely be resentful because he knows he’s clean. Questions will be raised about his character. These will unbalance him mentally and emotionally - constantly agitating him and keeping him mad as hell. He can’t sleep, eat, or make love. Repeatedly insult and call him a ‘punk ass’. His training regimen will crumble. When he climbs into the ring weakened, angry, rushing and raging to tear my head off - he’ll be ripe for the taking. I’ll run circles around him, make him look like a fool - frustrate him into making disastrous errors. I’ll own him.

Misdirection. Magicians and smart lawyers well understand this principle. To illustrate, a magician directs the audience’s attention to his right hand while his unnoticed left hand surreptitiously reaches for the hidden card or rabbit. Discretion prevents me from revealing how super lawyers use the same principle in winning cases.

Mayweather’s sneaky misdirection involves directing the attention of the boxing public to accusations of PED use and to blood testing demands with staged pronouncements of concerns for the boxers’ safety – smokescreening his true intention which is to mess up Pacquiao’s mind and emotions.

If detecting PEDs was really his honest intention, this objective can easily be accomplished: Just do the blood test right after the fight. Pacquiao had readily agreed to this fool-proof protocol. The fighter found PED positive will immediately be disqualified. If victorious, his victory is instantly nullified and the innocent fighter declared winner. Mayweather did not limit his demands to this reasonable reliable protocol because he has a different agenda. When he fought Arturo Gatti, he repeatedly called him: “a C+ fighter”, “a fake”, “ a blown up club fighter”. See?

The defamation lawsuit against Mayweather and co-conspirators is perfectly justified. Playing mind games, they have crossed ethical lines by resorting to baseless malicious defamatory accusations – ruining Manny’s good name and reputation. With good lawyering this case can be won. I would certainly throw in a demand for punitive damages which should kick in the big bucks – millions more. Punitive damages are proper and justifiable because malice is involved. I’ll even volunteer to prepare the pleadings and arguments pro bono re punitive damages. Hey, you can’t play dirty tricks with a national treasure – a good genuinely humble man … takes Filipinos’ minds off government corruption.

Team Pacquiao did right slamming the door on Mayweather’s face. That’s smart. Had they accepted Mayweather’s terms - the bogus PED accusations and the forced acceptance of unreasonable unjustifiable blood testing demands would have left a bad taste in Pacquiao’s mouth - affecting his emotions and mindset. The team did well in following WBC President Jose Sulaiman’s admonition: “He (Pacquiao) has always been clean… Let him (Mayweather) go to hell.”

I am positive that Mayweather’s camp will soon initiate new discussions to actualize the dream rumble. The enticement of boxing’s biggest purse ever is too irresistable for the tax-challenged Mayweather. Besides, his sneaky machinations which caused Manny to walk will forever haunt him if this fight goes nada. “Coward!” - Bob Arum alleges. Maybe not. Scheming? Definitely.When the fight is on, expect Mayweather to continue trying to mess Pacquiao’s mind. Hopefully, Pacquiao gets to read this article. Some good science here.

Now that Pretty Boy’s insidious tactics are bared – he won’t come out looking so pretty when the dust settles and the smoke clears. Expose the crime they look like slime.

Ted Laguatan is officially certified as an expert/specialist lawyer by the California State Bar. He does immigration law, personal injury, complex litigation, medical malpractice and other cases. He is rated as being among the top 5 percent best lawyers in America by a magazine for lawyers. For communications: 455 Hickey Blvd.,Ste.516,Daly City, CA 94015, Tel. (650) 991-1154, Fax (650)991-1186, E-mail: laguatanlaw@gmail.com