Monday, March 21, 2016

 
MORGAN GRAHAM PROVES HER CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW
 
No matter how much Morgan Graham hates the law, it is still the law.  The discussion is not whether John Chambers should have his name on the ballot, but does he have a legal right to ask for judicial review of Morgan's decision.  Indignant of the law, Morgan has a hissy fit encouraging people to bad mouth John for exercising the right given to him by the Texas Legislature [Republican controlled by the way for over 20 years].  If you know anything about ballot access law, you know the State Party and County Party Chairs lose most of the battles. 
 
I will note a federal and state case wherein the Texas Republican Party lost their ballot access cases.  According to Morgan the fact that the candidates win nearly all of these ballot access cases make John Chambers a cry baby for exercising her rights.  Shame, shame, shame on the Cameron County Republican Party for having as their chair someone with so little regard for We the People exercising our rights.
 
In the case of Tom Delay, the  federal court of appeals ruled against the Texas Republican Party.  In the case of Robert Francis the Texas Supreme Court rules against the Texas Republican Party.  Are you getting a hint the Texas Republican Party is having a hard time respecting the law as to ballot access?
 
Lets assume after the primary, but before the canvass, Morgan Graham was legally eligible to declare John Chambers administratively ineligible to hold the office of sheriff.  I am taking this issue off of the table.  I am giving it to Morgan for argument's sake.
 
Morgan under § 145.003 of the election code used the revocation of John Chambers Peace Officers license as evidence that he is ineligible to hold the office of Sheriff.  Based on this document she administratively declared him ineligible. 
 
The question then becomes what are the qualifications for holding the office of Sheriff?
 
For the first two years of office he does not need a peace officer's license.  So a peace officer's license is not a condition of holding officer for at least two years into office.
 
Sec. 1701.302.  CERTAIN ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS;  LICENSE REQUIRED. 
 
(a)  An officer, including a sheriff, elected under the Texas Constitution or a statute or appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective office must obtain a license from the commission not later than the second anniversary of the date the officer takes office.
 
Under the plain language of the Texas Administrative Code Title 37, which is controlling over the Occupation Code, if John Chambers is acquitted on appeal he has no conviction and can get his peace officers license back.  Restated after being elected he has two years to be acquitted on appeal.
 
Also the Occupation Code Rules are subject to the Texas Administrative Code and that Code is clear that if Chambers is cleared on appeal or is pardoned with a notation the evidence shows he was innocent, he would have no conviction.

(18) Convicted--Has been adjudged guilty of or has had a judgment of guilt entered in a criminal case that has not been set aside on appeal, regardless of whether:

(A) the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from probation; (B) the charging instrument is dismissed and the person is released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense; or
 
(C) the person is pardoned, unless the pardon is expressly granted for subsequent proof of innocence. 
 
The lawyers at the SOS office are notorious for getting the law wrong.  Their job is to write an opinion which suits the requester and not the law. 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT JOHN CHAMBERS QUALIFICATIONS, IT IS ABOUT HIS RIGHT TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS. SO WHY IS MORGAN GRAHAM SO OPPOSED TO JOHN CHAMBERS EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS?  SHE HAS NO USE FOR THE LAW

Given the Texas Republican Party's penchant for losing ballot access cases, one would think as someone who has sworn to uphold the law Morgan Graham would be encouraging John Chambers to exercise his rights instead of calling him a cry baby and encouraging people to attack him for exercising his rights.

AND FOR THE RECORD

What I am hoping more so than anything else what comes from the Texas Supreme Court opinion regardless of who wins is a discussion concerning the State's need to schedule the primary run-off for the 4th Tuesday of June instead of May.  The law as written allows candidates to steal elections with mail ballots because in a mail ballot case there is no time to collect the evidence, try the case and take it on appeal.  One would think CAVA would support me on this issue, but Mary Helen Flores is on record of opposing John Chambers exercising his rights. She posted the below comment on Morgan's FB page.  So much for respecting the votes of those who voted for John Chambers.  So what Mary Helen Flores is saying is, CAVA only respects the votes of those who vote for people she supports, and not all voters.

"Mary Helen Flores I question who would continue to fund a former candidate convicted of public corruption crimes. The mentality that public corruption is okay is a huge problem."

NEWSFLASH FOR MARY HELEN FLORES and MORGAN GRAHAM

In Cameron county we have seen multiple examples of people convicted by Luis Saenz, including one man sitting on death row, exonerated on appeal.  But according to Mary Helen Flores and Morgan Graham, these people just should have taken their punishment including a lethal needle rather than exercise their right to the appellate process. 

From a 2009 post of the Freedom Project:

"Eighteen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 229 years in prison – including 202 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit."

According to Mary Helen Flores and Morgan Graham these people just should have taken the lethal needle than exercise their right to exonerate themselves.  I am shocked give the undisputed fact John Chambers is doing nothing more than exercising his right, and the evidence of the number of people who have been removed from death row for exercising their appellate rights that any rational person would consider the words of Mary Helen Flores or Morgan Graham.

Justice is only served when all rights have been asserted and a result is final.  Why are Morgan Graham and Mary Helen Flores so opposed to the process playing out as provided for by law? 

If Morgan wins, and I see a path for a win, then she could have said she followed the rules and protected the voters.  But as of now because she has been so out spoken against John Chambers exercising his rights, she has lost that moral high ground.

It is clear Mary Helen Flores only respects the votes of those who vote for the candidates she supports and not all of the electorate.  It is time CAVA is recognized as the con organization it is.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I messaged her on Facebook 10 minutes ago and Morgan just said she isn't bothered by the mandamus and said anybody can file one and she stands by her "decision and followed the process outlined in the law."

But Chambers IS challenging not being on the ballot and that it is in what he filed that he wants her decision to remove him reversed. What's the deal with that Bobby? I looked at it what he filed and he is demanding that. All it would accomplish having an ineligible candidate on the ballot is award the nomination to Cortez. Why not let the voters have two candidates who legally qualified to be in a runoff since he was declared ineligible before the canvas?

It sounds to me like he is just trying to circumvent the law and force his name to be printed on a ballot he doesn't qualify for because he is a convict with no licensure.

She isn't even bothered if he follows through with his threats to sue her for the tens of thousands. She said she was "doing her job and sought counsel before making the decision on not only the legal aspect but the moral one." She expected he would sue her and even knew this mandamus and attempts at an injunction were a possibility. She knew she would get called names and attacked on a personal level. People keep calling her dumb but she has only been articulate and forthcoming whenever I ask her questions and immediately provides the codes and subsections when asked about the process. She said she expected the negatives that would follow her actions and having known her politically, she's pretty stoic and matter of fact. Taking into account this situation is one ive never heard of anybody having to handle locally and that she is dealing with her first election as a brand new chairman I'd say she is doing damn well. I've been reading your articles and a lot of the things you have presented or questioned she answered promptly when I asked her and dispassionately. I'm with her on this.

BobbyWC said...

You simple refuse to deal in the reality. This issue of ballot access is not new. In most cases the State Chairman or County Chairman loses if challenged. I gave you two cases wherein the State Republican party lost on the ballot access issue.

From the Francis case - opening sentences from the Texas Supreme Court:

"With the arrival of the biennial primary season, we must address once again whether the Texas Election Code requires minor defects in a candidate's papers to be addressed by eliminating the error or the candidate."

They went out of their way to note this is a routine thing every two years.

No Republican is going to win as sheriff. For me a win in this case will be if the Court hints the run off should be the 4th Tuesday of June. I do not like as it currently stands it is impossible to file an election contest if there is a run-off. It makes it too easy for someone to steal a place in the run-offs on mail ballots which are fraudulent. If the legislature changes the law based on this case then the people have a win regardless of whether John Chambers wins or not.

My issue is, why has she allowed for derogatory language against John for simply exercising his legal right to challenge her decision. Given the number of time the Texas Supreme Court has ordered names replaced on the ballot, if he has a lawyer telling him Morgan made a mistake why is her lawyer more correct than Johns? No answer because you cannot answer it.

In today's post for arguments sake I have her the argument that there is no defect in the time frame as to when she declared him ineligible because that is not the issue.

He must be ineligible before she can declare him ineligible. The federal court of appeals made a big issue of this when they ruled against the Republican Party in favor of Tom Delay.

I have given you the law. John Chambers does not need a peace officers license for his first two years in office. So the Peace Officers license is not an issue.

Morgan is hanging her hat on this provision:

"(2) the accusation, complaint, information, or indictment against the person is dismissed and the person is released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense; or"3) the person is pardoned for the offense, unless the pardon is granted expressly for subsequent proof of innocence.

You will not the bar to getting his license back does not include if on pardon it is found he was innocent.

the Occupation code which addresses the above is bound by the Administrative Code. It is clear there is a difference between being acquitted on appeal and mere dismissal.

The court is going to look to the meaning of convicted under the Texas Administrative and agree the provision Morgan relies on does not apply. John is not seeking dismissal he is seeking acquittal - a big difference.

But then the Texas Supreme Court may not see the difference.

Bobby WC






It does not say what happens if a person is acquitted. It is not unusual for a DA to just dismiss a case before it is tried.

I also gave you the law that if the court of appeals acquits him he has no conviction and his license is restored. He has two years from January to get to that point.

So since no peace officers license is needed to run for sheriff, what is the basis of the disqualification.

I have given her the argument it is better for the people to have a choice versus a default to Cortez. Cortez does not sound too confident he can beat Rodriguez.

Anonymous said...

She has freedom of speech too. County chairmen have the latitude to speak and we don't know what the context of the particular quote was on the news because of the necessary editing. She was and has been neutral with the candidates and refused to go to events or introduce any candidate locally or statewide in a contested primary so now that he is no longer a candidate I, as a member of the party, think she is making that distinction and speaking honestly. If she rebuts false claims he has made it's something most reasonable people would understand.

Character assassination is not something a chairman should have to tolerate quietly especially in a case where the statements Chambers makes are easily proven false. He is a loose canon and for his sake hopefully his lawyers reign him in unless they are just hoping for some extra pub.

BobbyWC said...

Conclusory statements made by you are useless. I saw the 5 new report and heard what she said. What a responsible chairperson should have done is simply say based on a legal opinion she declared John Chambers ineligible. She then should have said the legal process will need to play out and she will honor the result, but as far as she is concerned she acted in good faith based on a legal opinion from the SOS.

This would have been professional and honest. It is not the approach she took.

Now because of the complexity of the interactions of the elections code, Occupation code, and Administrative Code the court may just deny it as moot in that the issues are too complex to rule definitively before the hard date to submit the names to the publisher. This would be a fair ruling.

I am 100% on the fence as to what will happen. It can honestly go either way.

But my issue is he had a right to exercise his right to judicial review and she was unprofessional for attacking him for exercising his rights.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

"He's been campaigning for this job for two years now, and he still couldn't get half of the Republican vote plus one as an Anglo. That's says a lot."

Because the above part of your comment is so stupid your comment is rejected. You are a racist and racists have no voice here.

You are saying as an Anglo John should have received the 50.1 % of the vote because the Anglos are all Republicans and no Hispanics are Republicans. I think Tony Garza and Carlos Cascos will tell you different. There are plenty of Latino Republicans in Cameron county.

And considering how small the Anglo community is if they were all Republicans and they only vote Anglo then John would have gotten only about 5% of the vote. He got a lot of Latino vote.

But unlike you I am holding final judgment until the Texas Supreme Court. I can write two opinions at this point, one where Morgan wins and one where John wins. I just do not know which way the Texas Supreme Court will see this.

It would not shock me that they simply dismiss it as moot because the complexity of the issues make it impossible for they to do a proper review in time.

That would be neither a win nor loss for either just the court saying there is not time for them to get to the question because of its complexity.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Give me the facebook link and I will post your comment. But what you are saying is, when it was legal to charge blacks a poll tax it was a good thing even though it was the law. Just to be clear

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Give me the link and I will post it. I am looking at his campaign page now and the last post is the 19th and not today.

But you still refuse the point. It is his legal right to seek a judicial ruling. Why do you refuse to accept this well established fact. I gave you two links to two cases wherein the Texas Supreme Court ruled against the Texas Republican Party access.

Why are you so opposed to Chambers using the law to seek redress. It is his right in the same way based on a legal opinion Morgan decided it was her right to declare him ineligible. Why are you so opposed to the appellate process playing out and then accepting the result.

I will be cool if they rule against John. He used his right and lost. But he used his right.

They only way I will be made at the Supremes if they do not address changing the run-off the June.

I accept the process why can't you.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

You're a complete idiot. I have made clear I am voting for Sheriff Lucio. This is about process. So if I understand position you have already spoken with the court of appeals and they have told you they will uphold his conviction. Wow - I wish I had those connections.

Given Saenz's reversal rate how is it you cannot even conceive that the court may find there was insufficient evidence?

Idiot plain and simple

Bobby WC