First and foremost this is happening nationwide. There is nothing local about what is happening in Cameron county with the Republican Party. We are talking outright war between the Tea Party, and Corporatists and more traditional Republicans.
It had been my intent to attend Thursday's hearing, but the plumber is coming between 9 and 12 on Thursday. It is a great story. My home warranty insurance company paid to have the current air conditioning system installed for the previous owner. It was improperly installed and has caused mold problems. Those I have fixed and under control. The insurance company not only refuses to honor its warranty of work for companies they hire, they are now refusing to honor the policy outright. I have coverage for plumbing and air conditioning. But because the repair involves both it is considered a remodel issue and there is no coverage. They will eventually spend $50,000 in attorneys fees over my $260 expense to reroute the air conditioning drainage line.
Anyway, I cannot be at the hearing.
Lawyers are basically idiots. Every contract and every settlement agreement should have a mutual draft clause. They do not. This means both sides equally participated in the drafting of the agreement. This is important because when a contract is vague it is construed against the person who drafted it. So if their is a mutual drafting clause and a dispute occurs later on, the contract cannot be construed against one party based on vagueness.
In the case of Frank Morris, there was no other party involved in what he wrote. It is possibly vague. He did say if he needs to he will write a separate resignation for his new term. This leaves in doubt whether in his mind his letter of resignation included his existing and new term. As such it could be construed against him.
In terms of turning in the keys etc - meaningless to the case. If Judge McDonald even considers the language he will be reversed. Frank Morris clearly resigned his then current term. As such he had no choice but to turn in the keys and take his name off of the accounts. It meant nothing in terms of his new term which had yet to begin.
His later letter may act as a clarification which could save him from any claim that he caused the vagueness thereby causing his resignation to be construed against him.
It comes down to a simple question - is Frank Morris's resignation as to his new term vague? If it is not then his resignation cannot be construed against him. In his original resignation he does not state he was resigning for the term which had yet to commence. Based on this simple fact I do not see how any judge can construe his resignation of his current term to include his future term.
Mind you, it could be construed as vague and if it is Frank loses.
Inasmuch as I have not seen any of the documents first hand I will make no prediction. I just wanted to give some insight into how these documents are construed.