Monday, August 18, 2014















TAD HASSE V. FRANK MORRIS - ONE IDIOT CHASING ANOTHER IDIOT

I was going to wait on the hearing on this mess before I commented, but since Tad Hasse is using Montoya and Barton to mislead people as to what is happening, and Montoya just outright lies, I decided to view the documents related to the issue of jurisdiction. It is almost too surreal to believe both of these people are represented by counsel. If you are new to this story, Tad Hasse is suing Frank Morris to enforce his resignation from the office of Republican County Chair. Frank Morris's original letter was not clear, by his own words in the letter, and 11 hours later he chose to issue a second letter withdrawing his resignation before the local Republican Party took any action on it.

An email from the GOP State Chair enlightens the court on the issue.

 
The State Chair of the Republican Party makes clear that replacing Frank Morris after resignation is a matter for the Cameron County Republican Party, and not the state Chair or statewide Party.  GOP Chair Munisteri makes clear that Tad Hasse needs to look to the local rules for guidance. This makes the Cameron County GOP an essential party.
 
Amazingly absent from his jurisdiction brief is any reference the local rules.  It is pretty axiomatic that if Frank Morris withdrew his resignation before acted on, he is still the chair.  One must ask why Hasse seems a need to not even reference the local rules.
 
Below is the gist of his argument.  To my amazement his lawyer, Cesar de Leon actually argues the court has no jurisdiction in these matters.
 
 
If you start with "Moreover", Hasse's attorney concedes this is a case within the political realm and outside the jurisdiction of the court.
 
The lead case in this area of law is The Republican Party of Texas v. Deitz.  What is amazing is Morris' lawyer does not even discuss the case which gives him the win.  In fact his attorney Paul Fourt Jr. filed a one page document saying the court may or may not have jurisdiction, and that for purposes of appeal Morris is reserving the right to challenge the court's jurisdiction.  Beyond bizarre.
 
Let me explain something to you Pauly which you never learned in law school, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waive.  There is no need to reserve anything.  It can be raised for the first time with the Texas Supreme Court.
 
 
 
Hasse's attorney rightfully says that the court has jurisdiction to enforce the election code.  He then cites § 201.001 of the election code as a basis for enforcement.  The problem is § 201.001 only speaks to the process of resignation, which Morris appears to have complied with. Further, the Dietz  case and the case cited by Hasse himself makes clear Frank Morris is not a public officer.  Given this fact § 201.001, does not apply as a matter of law.
 

"§ 201.001. RESIGNING OR DECLINING OFFICE.  (a) To be
effective, a public officer's resignation or an officer-elect's
declination must be in writing and signed by the officer or
officer-elect and delivered to the appropriate authority for acting
on the resignation or declination.  The authority may not refuse to
accept a resignation.

 (b)  If the authority to act on a resignation or declination
is a body, the resignation or declination may be delivered to the
presiding officer of the body or to its clerk or secretary.

 (c)  An officer-elect who intends to qualify for the office
but desires to resign at a subsequent date may submit a resignation
in the same manner as an officer who has assumed office, and the
vacancy may be filled in the same manner as if the resignation had
been submitted after the officer-elect assumed office."
 
 
"Similarly, in Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F.2d 370, 372 (3d Cir.1965), the Third Circuit held that “the normal role of party leaders in conducting internal affairs of their party, other than primary or general elections, does not make their party offices governmental offices or the filling of these offices state action.” -
 
....
 
"The Sixth Circuit concluded in Banchy v. Republican Party of Hamilton County, 898 F.2d 1192, 1196 (6th Cir.1990), that the election of party ward chairmen was not state action because there was no evidence that the chairmen played an “integral part” in the election process.   See also Valenti v. Pennsylvania Democratic State Comm., 844 F.Supp. 1015, 1018, 1020 (M.D.Pa.1994)(holding that the Democratic Party was not a state actor when holding an endorsement meeting;  accordingly, the Party could preclude a gubernatorial candidate from disseminating certain materials from his boot3, 1018-19 (D.Neb.1991))(holding that removal of county officers of Republican Party was not state action but merely an internal party affair)."
 
Nothing in the election code addresses Party Rules other than they must comply with state law.  Courts are not one to interfere in the affaires of private organizations. 
 
Hasse was told by the State Party Chair that the matter was to be addressed under the local rules.  Hasse may have a case, but for now he sued the wrong party.  It is the role of the Cameron County Republican Party to replace a party chair who has resigned.  For whatever reason the people responsible for this have chosen to not act - I suspect based on the fact Morris withdrew his letter of resignation before the Cameron County Republican Party acted on his resignation. Even if  §201.001(a) is applicable - "The authority may not refuse to accept a resignation," you must sue the authority to compel them to accept the resignation, and not the party who resigned.  Hence my argument that an essential party has not been sued.
 
Inasmuch as for purposes of the Party chair the Cameron County Republican party is not a public entity, how they act is their choice.  At a minimum if Hasse believes the local party failed to comply with its own rules, he should have sued the Party to enforce the rules.  He did not.  A judge cannot just void the decision of a private organization which was never made party to the lawsuit. 
 
This was my point about the State GOP being an essential party.  I noted that the State Rules did not address the issue, so it was a matter of confusion.  Now, I know the State Chair has made it clear it is the sole province of the local Party.  Given this fact, which Hasse himself establishes, the local party becomes an essential party.
 
I AM NO FRIEND OF FRANK MORRIS
 
I have made it clear Frank Morris is an obstacle to the building of the local Republican Party.  The man could not get people to run in November's election even after the disaster related to the Limas and Villalobos mess.
 
But Hasse is no better.  He uses Montoya to promote lies.  Montoya's claim that Morris did not use my argument is absurd.  Here is a newsflash for Tad Hasse - the perpetual con artist  - It was not me who raised the issue of jurisdiction - it was the judge.  Further, Frank Morris' attorney went out of his way to reserve the issue of jurisdiction.
 
Second, the other argument I pushed was - if Frank withdrew his resignation before his term started then he did not resign.  Another newsflash for you Tad - this is  the core of Frank's argument.
 
The fact Tad Hasse has to go to a known pathological liar to obfuscate the issue, tells you all you need to about Tad Hasse.  It is sad Cameron County does not seem to have anyone willing to lead the Republican Party in a smart and honorable way.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Morris is a public official and subject to 201.001....DUMB ASS

BobbyWC said...

The Dietz opinion is actually quite clear on this issue and for these purposes he is not.

But even if he is, all §201.001 says is how you resign - a lawsuit must be directed towards the agency or party not enforcing the resignation - in this case it would be the Cameron county GOP - Hasse has not sued the GOP

Dumb Ass

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Hey Dumb ass - the Texas Election Code does not define Public Official - when this happens the courts tend to go to Blacks law dictionary - something is not so just because your syphilitic brains claim it to be so.

"Definition. According to Black's Law Dictionary a "public official" is "[o]ne who holds or is invested with a public office; a person elected or appointed to carry out some portion of a government's sovereign powers." "Public officer" is defined in a similar way. For this research, the terms "public officials" and "public officers" are interchangeable.

While each state has taken slightly different approaches, both terms usually include persons who have been elected to an office at the state or local levels. States differ on including appointed offices, judges and state employees."

http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-definitions-of-public-official-officer.aspx

Politic parties are not part of the government - you really need to read the Dietz opinion

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Hasse is just a twisted sick old putz who is attacking one person after another in the effort to try to scare them into silence and into not participating in the party anymore. He has said before that humiliation is the handiest of allies. He doesn't care about that inconvenient little thing called the "truth". That is why whenever he does not get to twist the comment section of this blog into a tool to do a number on somebody, he runs to Barton's blog.

Now he is trying to obfuscate and spin the story further so that when or if things do not go his way he can bully and deride everybody around Morris until they (he hopes) disappear into the sunset. He can pretend to be a good little soldier all he wants when kissing some public office holding or blogging asses, but we all know he is back there looking for a good place in their back to plunge the knife in the future.

Anonymous said...

So are you one of the people around Morris that is in fear of a knife in your back? Hasse has not been known to be an ass kisser, no matter what spin you wish to apply. Go on, take a poll. Ask around. I will have to agree with you on one and only one point: The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

Anonymous said...

No, I am just somebody who has witnessed first hand Hasse's manipulation of people and malice. And he will kiss a little ass and cozy up- much like the way a boa constrictor "hugs" something with the full intent to eat it. The damage of its demise is just incidental to them both.

BobbyWC said...

Tad Hasse is not the issue - the issue is Did Frank Morris resign?

Now I must agree Tad is inviting abuse because he is dumb enough to think he can win something by debating his machinations on blogs.

No Tad that decision will be made by Judge Murray - not the blogs or the endless anony cowards who have something to say about both sides.

And in the end, the divisions will remain and the reputations of each player will only have been enhanced by their conduct during this litigation. Which is sad because all of their moronic words and attacks on one another do nothing to help the Republican Party and has no impact on how Judge Murray will rule.

This battle is not about Republican values - it is about power which in Cameron county means nothing if you are a Republican


Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

So if the State party is an essential party but does not consider themselves to BA a party to the action at all, is it like a pocket veto where no action all can be taken? I'm trying to figure out the ramifications of this.

BobbyWC said...

You are failing to follow what is happening.

I suggested that there was an essential party missing form the litigation - I noted that the State Party had no rules or regulations on the matter which is cause for confusion.

The State GOP put the ball of recognizing the county chair on the county party, thereby removing the State GOP as an essential party and putting it on the county party, As I said based on their email, then the county party is the missing essential party.

Assuming § 201.001 applies, it would be the county party failing to accept Morris' resignation. This is not even clear - before the county party could be compelled to accept Morris' resignation, there would have to an effect resignation. Frank withdrew his resignation. So this becomes a problem.

Again assuming § 201.001 even applies the county party would argue since Morris withdrew his resignation then there is no resignation they are refusing to accept and § 201.001 does not come into play.

Remember § 201 only comes into play if in this scenario Frank is a public officer - according to the legal definition he is not.

The only time where the local or state party are subject to court order for sure is in matters surrounding elections - for example ballot access is one where county chairs are often sued.

But as to internal affairs which have nothing to do with elections the courts have found hands off.

if §201 does apply because Frank is considered a public officer - highly unlikely since the Party is not part of any state government, then a suit against the local party to compel them to accept the resignation of Morris would work.

Bobby WC