The Editor - The hearing on the TRO that was scheduled for Monday of this week has been reset for Monday, July 28, 2014.
This TRO was filed a few days before the LULAC National Convention of Saturday, July 12, 2014. The TRO was clear that the court was restraining LULAC, Margaret Moran and Manuel Escobar from using Rules 12 and 21 during the meeting of the LULAC National Assembly, the supreme authority of LULAC.
At 11:33 AM on that Saturday, Luis Vera went up before the assembly of 1,625 delegates to inform them that there was a TRO that he and the LULAC attorneys were reviewing and recessed the assembly until 2:30 PM.
At 2:20 PM, 10 minutes before all the delegates returned to the assembly floor, Luis Vera stood before those delegates present that he was going to suspend the LULAC Convention of the National Assembly because he had a TRO that prohibited LULAC from conducting business.
825 delegates stayed. They represented more than the 541 delegates needed for a quorum. They continued to conduct business and voted in a new slate of LULAC National Officers
48 hours after the convention ended the Editor was able to read the TRO and discovered that the TRO restricted only the use of Rules 12 and 21. Barring those rules did noting to obstruct the ability of LULAC to conduct business, unless you have a twisted mind like Luis Vera, Manuel Escobar, Margaret Moran and Rosa Rosales.
Luis Vera mindset is that of LULAC being a sovereign entity, that the courts should not be involved with the internal affairs of LULAC. There is that kind of thinking in legal circles regarding non-profit organizations. While it is true that courts do not like to meddle with the internal operations of a non-profit, non-profits are not immune from court scrutiny.
Courts will examine the operations of a non-profit if it is legislating beyond the bounds of its constitution and by-laws. The term used in legal case law is legislating, meaning to creating language that extends the bounds of the language of the organization's constitution and by-laws.
Courts will also get involved in the elections process that a non-profit uses in electing its board of directors. In LULAC, that would be its National Executive Committee, the officers who are elected into office each year.
In its 85 year history, meeting one time each year, LULAC has never failed to conduct its national elections. The event of New York City, where Vera is saying that no elections were held goes against the history of LULAC. Elections were held, Vera and Roger Rocha's delegates just decided not to participate.
What the New York court is very likely going to address is whether Vera violated the intent of the TRO. He did say to the assembly that given the court order, the convention could not continue.
Not being able to count votes, the actual head counting of the delegate votes has not been absent in LULAC when there was a need for a head count. The elections in El Paso in 1994 and the elections in Dallas in 1998 are elections which saw a winner by a margin of from 1 to 5 votes, depending on the number of counters who counted the votes in El Paso and a similar vote where the margin for the victor was a margin of 16 votes. In both elections the delegates to the assembly asked for and got a head count. Head counts take more time, but once conducted, the delegates can see how the votes are going to line up and afterwards, the election gains all of the respect of the winners, as well as the respect of the losers.
In 2013, the Machine, got the Rules Committee to go beyond the Constitution and create language that a challenge to the call of an election would be considered a challenge to the Legal Advisor that would need a 2/3'rds vote from the delegates on the floor to override. This 2/3'rds vote requirement would mean that in close elections, when you most need a counting of the delegate votes, a tiny minority would not get a vote count. This rule was used to prevent a counting of the delegate votes in the election for National President in Las Vegas.
Knowing what happened in 2013, the opposition prepared for 2014. Rule 12 was included in the 21 rules proposed by the Rules Committee. It would take a 2/3'rds vote to override the Rules Committee. The Rule was viewed as legislating beyond the bounds of the LULAC Constitution. In the description of the powers entrusted to the Legal Advisor, his Rule 12 role in the LULAC Convention of the National Assembly are not found in the Constitution. Rule 12 was a make up rule. Similarly was the creation of Rule 21, which was a rule that would call for the compulsory expulsion of a LULAC delegate who protested decisions of the LULAC officers running the Convention of the Assembly. This rule creates a standard of behavior in LULAC that can mean automatic expulsion from the league.
Thus the TRO of the New York court for Saturday, July 12, 2014. The court order said do not use Rule 12 and 21. Vera looked at the order as intrusion into the affairs of LULAC. The Editor would expect that Vera will have some explaining to do. What in the court order caused him to cancel the election? If the court finds Vera lamely responding to the court's concern, the court is not going to like it. Vera is not in the wild west in a new York State court. He will be in court that has seen all types of characters argue cases before the bench. If the court finds that Vera was purposefully making mockery of the court TRO, there will be hell to pay in the form of sanctions, for the defendants and possibly for Vera. The bond was set for $4.5 million as a backdrop for damages. Illegally violating the court order has the potential of having the full limit of damages assessed against Vera and defendants. What could also happen is that the court might find other ways to sanction Vera and defendants' reckless behavior with regards to the New York court order.
Then there is the Texas TRO that Vera was able to obtain from a district court in Bexar County. That TRO leaves in place the National officers who were elected in 2013, through the next National LULAC Convention in 2015.
The hearing in New York will sure take into consideration Vera's total disrespect for the New York court by seeking and obtaining a court order in a foreign state in a matter that is being litigated in the New York court. First in time, first in line is generally the way courts deal with inter-court jurisdictional, abstention, disputes. It might add to problems for Vera before the New York court. Courts do not like being disrespected by anybody, attorneys or other courts.
The Editor will provide you with updates as soon as we get them.
No comments:
Post a Comment