fairconvention.org... Let's follow the Rules

JUDGE DISSOLVES TRO; RPT CONTINUES TO AVOID FAIR DISCUSSION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Debra Medina 979-253-0220

June 9, 2008

HOUSTON -- Harris County Court Judge Roberta Lloyd today ruled that the Request for Declaratory Judgement filed by Debra Medina and other grassroots Republicans was in fact a Writ of Mandamus and therefore outside the jurisdiction of her court and dissolved the temporary restraining order granted last week by visiting judge Tom Sullivan. An appeal has been filed.

"We have a right to choose our remedy under the law, and the Texas Election Code provides an option for either injunctive relief, including a Restraining Order, or a Writ of Mandamus. As the Party continues to claim that electing State Party leadership is not convention business, we chose to seek the course that would allow for testimony and discussion before the court of what constitues the business of the convention. Filing for a writ of mandamus does not allow that opportunity," said Gary Polland, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Repeating their existing pattern, RPT chose to abuse the process to prevent any opportunity for discussion of the merits of the case. The Party filed with the 1st Court of Appeals late Friday asking them to instruct the County Court to remove the restraining order, claiming that--despite being filed as a request for injunctive relief--this was a Writ of Mandamus that should have been filed in the Appeals Court, and the County Court therefore lacked jurisdiction. (In contrast, the Party's response to the Writ of Mandamus filed in the 13th Court of Appeals was that the Appeals Court lacked jurisdiction.) The Appeals Court ruled early Monday morning that there was no need for such a ruling as a hearing was scheduled to discuss the matter in the County Court.

At that hearing today the Party repeated the claim that this was in fact a writ of mandamus and the court lacked jurisdiction. Despite repeated assertions that injunctive relief was sought and that a full hearing with testimony was necessary to determine the facts of the case, the court declared that "the underlying cause... is a request for a Writ of Mandamus and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear such a request," and dissolved the Temporary Restraining Order.

PARTY STILL DOESN'T GET IT RIGHT

Inexplicably, RPT Headquarters still seems to be confused about the substance of the case, including the ruling they were awarded today. Their press release gets several facts wrong including:

1) That "the case was filed by former Harris County Republican Party Chairman Gary Polland;" Mr. Polland is the lawyer in the case but has no interest as a plaintiff.

2) That "Lloyd rule[d] Polland's case was 'Void ab initio' or illegal from the beginning;" RPT counsel sought this ruling from the court but were denied, the Temporary Restraining Order was dissolved instead.

3) That "Mr. Polland and Ms. Medina were seeking to evade rules passed by Republican grassroots;" when Ms. Medina and her fellow plaintiffs' entire case is that the rules and law are not being followed and have not been followed for years.

4) That Ms. Medina and her fellow plaintiffs "resorted to judicial activism" when it was Charmain Benkiser and the RPT who refused to reach a settlement on this matter, avoided service of the TRO, and sought a ruling from a higher court that would have denied the opportunity for a hearing.

5) That "neither [Polland nor Medina] has ever expressed interest in changing Party rules or this statute;" when Mallory Miller, additional plaintiff on the case, provided affidavits and was prepared to testify today that he has been trying to raise this issue inside the Party since at least 2000. Further, delegates presented this same issue to the temporary rules committee of the convention today and were ruled out of order by the committee.

6) In addition, Chairman Benkiser was finally spotted today when she entered the temporary rules committee meeting long enough to announce that the court had ruled that the party was following the rules. No such ruling was issued--the only question raised was the issue of jurisdiction.