Friday, March 18, 2016

 
NEWSHFLASH, TEXAS SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS CHAMBERS' MANDAMUS AND ORDERS MORGAN GRAHAM TO DEFEND HER DECISION
 
UPDATE FOR TROLLS:
 
In typical troll fashion I was told I had no idea what the filing meant and that it in fact only meant the clerk accepted it.  Well I have won enough of these to know how it works.  The order requesting a response  was sent out after the mandamus lawyer did the work up and the justices reviewed it.  It was not an order simply sent out because there was a filing.  It was sent after the Justices reviewed the mandamus.  From the Texas Supreme Court Docket sheet.
 
"
03/18/2016Work-Up by Staff / Review by Justices
 
After reviewing the Petition the Justices would not have ordered an answer had they not seen something.  But like I said even at this point there is a 25% chance once they review Morgan's response they will deny the Mandamus.
 
There was a defect in the filing in that the filing fee did not include the fee for the Stay.  Chambers lawyer was ordered to pay it and it was paid, so that issue is resolved.
 
ORIGINAL POST
 
The knowledge of the order for Morgan to respond by 5 p.m. Tuesday came late so it was too late to check with Remi Garza to learn if the Texas Supreme Court called him for a firm deadline. UPDATE - REMI GARZA WAS CALLED.  IT IS NOTED IN THE ORDER
 
It seems odd to me if the deadline has passed that the Court would not simply have denied it as moot.  But it is anyone's guess.
 
For now, the Cameron County Republican Party will have to pay an attorney to file a response.  Do I hear Fundraiser to pay for the attorney?
 
This development does not mean Chambers has won, it simply means they see something.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you think the fact that the Texas Supreme Court accepted Chambers's filing "simply means they see something"? What, are you stupid or something? REALLY? It only means the petition was filed in accordance with the Texas Supreme Court's rules regarding form. It's got NOTHING to do with substance. Chambers is fighting a losing battle. Apparently he's too delusional to understand that he will NEVER be Cameron County Sheriff. Maybe he can get a job as your copy-boy/personal assistant once his suicide mission is complete

BobbyWC said...

I have more than 20 mandamus wins, how many do you have? I know enough from experience if the court sees nothing they deny the mandamus without asking the other side to respond. I have seen enough outright denials.

But I went out of my way to say the fact they ordered her to respond does not mean he will win. About 25% of the time after a response is received the mandamus is denied, which means about 75% of the time it is granted.

The Texas Supreme Court does not force people to spend money on attorneys fees if they do not see something. Before the order was issued to respond the mandamus lawyer assigned for the day reviewed it and found they needed more information. This is why the order was issued. But a need for more information does not mean Chambers has won. I made this point clear.

You simple refuse to understand the process and post your nonsense. I have not read the mandamus so I have no idea how strong or week it is.

But I know this there is no law which allows for a candidate to be declared ineligible after the primary vote but before the runoff

Can you provide my readers that law and I will give it its own post

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Now I agree he will never be sheriff because there is zero chance of a Republican winning. I have made this clear since day one. This is not about winning. It is about Ballot Access and following the law

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

It's sad that you have so much hate towards a person you obviously DON'T know. To speak that way about Mr Chambers means you know nothing about him.. none of his good intentions none of his firm beliefs ABSOLUTELY NOTHING these other candidates don't give a damn about anything but winning and you talk down about someone who is humble.. your words speak loudly about the type of person you are

Anonymous said...

Well said... I fear you're right... but if a Republican were to win God be with John Chambers because he's the best choice.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to know how we can recall Morgan. In my 60 years in Cameron County she has got to be the worst party chair ever.

BobbyWC said...

Until I review Morgan's response I cannot predict a result. Within an hour after filing it will be posted to the Texas Supreme Court web page. She may have a defense - but I do not see it.

Her best defense is mootness - but Remi will make that call based on a hard date for submitting the names to the publisher.

But she said on News 5 that John Chambers has no respect for the law. This was out of line and is enough to have her removed. But based on her standard if she loses and the Texas Supreme Court tells her she ignored the law who then is the one with no respect for the law and who should resign?

Bobby wc

Anonymous said...

GO AND FUCK YOURSELF, YOU DIRTY SAD FUCK! BLOWBOY BE GONE! GODDAMNED MANGY DOG. CLEAN YOUR ASS AND MAYBE YOUR BRAIN WILL WORK, YOU FUCKING FUCK-UP!!!

Anonymous said...


Morgan's action has as much to do with Victor Cortez as it does John Chambers.

Anonymous said...

It is so sad how people were talking about her behind her back on Saturday at the convention, she really looked lost... She wasn't focused at all. I felt sorry for her, that her own pct. Chairs were talking among them self.

BobbyWC said...

If and I stress If Chambers wins, you watch how fast Carlos Cascos runs from her. His letter never authorized her conduct. It was a general statement of law without specific facts to the time tables and facts of this case. It was written so they could deny involvement.

You would think her lawyer husband could have helped her with this, but apparently he could not.

Like I said I would not bet a penny on predicting the winner in the mandamus. there are too many variables. Soon after her lawyers file her brief it will be available on line. I will read it, consider her argument and if she is correct I will post same. I am reserving final judgment until I see her argument.

But I am sure of this, her attorneys are working today checking Chambers case law and statutory law looking for misrepresentations or mistakes. Then they will begin their brief.

But she needs to be careful. This is not a local yokel court. This is the Supremes and clearly frivolous arguments could get her sanctioned. Same for John Chambers

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

The cowards never spoke up when given the opportunity, and having been at those damn things for years this one was the first a lot of us enjoyed. She was stern with people trying to take advantage of the ignorance of one of the committees. She asked several times if anybody had an issue section by section.

And if you felt so sorry for her, you wouldn't be on a blog. You would have spoken up. So either you weren't really there or you are just trying to take the piss out on her.

Anonymous said...

Being interrupted with stupid questions by people who needed to know if putting "not applicable" versus "n/a" was okay.

And when she was given a standing ovation for her performance as chairman, I'm sure you felt so terribly sorry for her.

Anonymous said...

I'm just happy I'm starting to see Morgans true colors come out. I always thought she was different. Educated and lady-like but no. She's is now publicly throwing stones at Chambers which is something she supposedly doesn't like done to her. It's a shame the Republican Party is being talked about and ridiculed by other parties. These people are throwing trash at eachother. Unbelievable! Isn't the chair supposed to be uniting everyone instead of bashing one of their own?

Anonymous said...

What do you mean? Nothing surprises me anymore. These Republicans are something else. Now she has something against Victor?

Anonymous said...

I agree with you sir/madam.

Anonymous said...

Answering questions and presenting the facts is called honesty. That's what a chairman does when people are entitled to the truth.

Anonymous said...

In that manner? She's Republican Chair for crying out loud. If I want to see Republicans bashing each other I'll watch Trump and the rest of the morons go at it. What I don't like to see is the whole Republican Party here in Cameron County throwing low blows back and forth. It's understandable when it's candidates going at it against each other but now the chair wants to get herself involved? First the attack on Chambers then Michael Watkins and now she likes Rodriguez. This is an outrage. You guys are making yourselves look like fools! And Morgan Graham is the local TRUMP.

Anonymous said...

No she doesn't. She's been saying nothing but the best about both Rodriguez and Cortez.

Personally I think she did the right thing not waiting until after the canvas or else it would have gone to Cortez automatically. Chambers keeps saying she did this to benefit Cortez. If that were true she would have waited instead of doing things the harder way to make sure two eligible candidates are in the runoff. She's got support from us on the executive committee and from both Cortez and Rodriguez's supporters.

BobbyWC said...

Part of your reasoning makes sense. Yes by the way she did it she guaranteed a choice for the voters. This is never bad.

But you assume she is correct about John Chambers being ineligible. Why are you all afraid of the legal process given to John by the legislature to play out?


In my post this morning I conceded I now see a possible pathway to victory for Morgan. The Republican in November is not going to win anyway. The issue is ballot access and every party chair should respect all candidates exercising their legal right to seek judicial review.

Morgan has made it clear she will not tolerate candidates seeking judicial review as provided for by law.

She should have remained neutral simply stating she believes she did the right thing. She did not. She has allowed for a lot of negative.

I have rejected endless vulgarities against Morgan because they serve no purpose.

She may be right and if she is then she gets to say the Texas Supreme Court agreed with her. This is this complex nuance legal issue which could give her the win. That is why I say there is a pathway to her winning. I am not denying it - I am saying let the candidates use their rights and stop the bad mouthing.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

What she said on Krgv is definitely not fact. She said in her opinion we have a candidate who has no regards for the law. So what if john wins and he is in fact the one upholding the law. Then it would be Morgan broke it.