Thursday, December 18, 2014


THE DILEMMA OF SYLVIA GARZA-PEREZ

Our democracy fails when those duly elected by the people cannot take office.  The fact I did not vote for Sylvia Garza-Perez means nothing to what is at stake at  this moment.  I have seen the documents which explain why she cannot get a bond, as of last report - may have changed in last 5 minutes.  If people know how to search a lot of documents are very public.  But you know what, it is no one's business.  Life is more complex than a document - documents are created based on complex events which sometimes people cannot control - at least in part.

 
WHEN SOMEONE RUNS FOR OFFICE THEY IMPLY TO THE PEOPLE THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OFFICE

A simple question - if John Doe were to run for judge on what later turned out to be a fake law license, would he be allowed to take the bench just because the people vote for him?  No - because after the election we learned he did not meet the requirements of office.  We have now learned Sylvia Garza-Perez does not meet the requirements of office because as of this moment she does not qualify for the bond which is a condition of office.

 In the interests of the democratic process I hope she finds a bonding company willing to back her.

BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT CAMERON COUNTY PUTTING UP THE MONEY TO COVER THE BOND
 
For me this is a perfect example of common ground.  Everyone knows that I am no supporter of Carlos Cascos or Sofia Benavides.  But this issue is a great example of Common Ground.  Cascos has publicly come out against taxpayer money being used to fund Sylvia's bond.  This is good.  Sources are telling me, but I have yet to confirm that Sofia Benavides has indicated she will not support the use of taxpayer money to fund Sylvia's bond.  Dan Garza tends to go with Cascos - so I suspect Montoya is correct [yes it can happen] when he says the votes are not there.  But for me this is not enough - I want to see Alex Dominguez and Dan Sanchez publicly come out against the use of taxpayers money to fund Sylvia's bond.
 
Personally I hope she can find a bonding company because the people chose her and not her opponent.  But if she could not meet the conditions of office, meaning the ability to secure a bond, then she does not know meet the conditions of office and should not be allowed to take office by using taxpayer money.
 
Common ground is when people who have something more to do with their life than taking sides and settling score can see an issue which impacts the entire community and can put aside their differences long enough to put the community first.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

she has never been a qualified candidate, she stole the election thru the old politiquera system... hoarded all those innocent elderly votes to her advantage. this is not Correct. i Agree i do NOT want my taxes to go to fund her BOND!!!

Anonymous said...

Please Commissioners Court i ask you humbly do NOT use my hard earned Tax money on a Bond for Perez !!!

Anonymous said...

I'm puzzled. Why can't she get a bond? I am not familiar with it being so difficult for an elected official to receive such bonding. I'm just curious.

BobbyWC said...

there is zero evidence politiqueras were used in this evidence and the returns tend to prove this - lying does not help your argument.

As to her problem - I will not get into her personal life.

Many factors go into getting a bond - she cannot meet the requirements as of this moment - but she may by January 1 2015.

Everything is subject to being fixed.


Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

exactly Fixed !!!!!!

BobbyWC said...

I will not publish your comment because it includes claims I could never prove and in my opinion cross the line into her personal life.

How long does Cameron county have to wait - I do not know. county.org has a lot of information on the process - but they never deal with what happens if she cannot get bonded and the county fails to fund her bond. I have to assume there is a law someone which says if an elected official does not take office by a date certain they have resigned that office.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

de facto elected official - is this Sylvia's way out - I do not know - there seems to be a lot of contradictions in this article and the AG opinion and the one it is based on

I really have no interest in spending more time on this - I have things to do

but for anyone interested in reading this try
http://freedom-school.com/law/de-fact-officer-doctrine.pdf

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2012/htm/ga0933.htm


Anonymous said...

i don't believe its appropriate for any individual or business to help by securing a bond for the county clerk elect... i feel it would be a conflict of interest and borderline illegal.... just my thoughts as a taxpayer quid pro quo ... or WHAT

Anonymous said...

If she's still un-bonded by early January, all it takes, ALL it takes, is a county resident with standing to file a petition in District court.. Failing to execute a bond is grounds for removal. Then she can be removed by trial by jury; no mean feat, true.

BobbyWC said...

I do not doubt you - but can you provide the provision so I do not have the deal with - no you are wrong group

It does seem to me from readying county.org - Joe River holds over and continues in office

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

the lesser of two evils...

Anonymous said...

The link is in the original comment, but here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.87.htm#87.014

BobbyWC said...

To help the readers who I know will never go to the link - here you go

Sec. 87.014. GROUNDS: FAILURE TO GIVE BOND. A county officer who is required by law to give an official bond may be removed under this subchapter if the officer:

(1) fails to execute the bond within the time prescribed by law; or

(2) does not give a new bond, or an additional bond or security, if required by law to do so.


Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.





Sec. 87.015. PETITION FOR REMOVAL. (a) A proceeding for the removal of an officer is begun by filing a written petition for removal in a district court of the county in which the officer resides. However, a proceeding for the removal of a district attorney is begun by filing a written petition in a district court of:

The statute presented an interesting question - how do you remove someone who has yet to take office?

This implies de facto elected official would apply - which means she takes office.

The other problem under the rules it could easily take 6 months or longer which would giver her time to secure a bond.

But thanks for the link because it helps to educate my readers

Bobby WC