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

HOW FAR HAVE WE FALLEN?

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

August 19, 2008

In 1787, Madison advocated a large republic as the surest way to protect individual liberty - arguing that the most serious source of faction is the diversity of opinion in political life. Boy, he got that right!

Earlier this year, individuals involved in the political party process all across Texas began to complain that their rights to free speech and to free assembly were being abused, ignored and trampled. Determined to see that these individuals received a full and fair hearing at the Texas Republican Party State Convention, Wharton Co. Republican Party Chairman, Debra Medina conferred with and ultimately retained Gary Polland as legal counsel to negotiate with the Republican Party of Texas leadership to insure that the law was followed at the state convention. The right of delegates to elect their own chairman (who then appoints committee chairmen who wield great influence over the entire convention process) had been ignored since early in former state chair Susan Weddington's reign and continued under current party chairman, Tina Benkiser.

"What's in it for her", you ask? The knowledge that she stood to defend the rule of law, to insure the right to a trial (in this case, a hearing before a committee chaired by an appointee of a duly elected chairman as is provided for in the Texas Election Code). The real question she says, is "are we going to follow the law?"

But in this system that today masquerades as justice, the plaintiff doesn't even get a hearing. The facts are not discussed, they are not even heard. There is no testimony, there is no evidence presented.

The judge ruled she did not have jurisdiction but has now decided to modify that original judgment and in a chilling move that quashes dissent and prevents a hearing, has awarded attorney fees to the defendant. And not a pittance, $14,500 if plaintiffs will sit down and shut up! If they believe as Medina does that the decision is wrong and they choose to appeal to a higher court, the fee could run as high as $39,500 - that's not taking into account the fees that they will incur to pay their own legal counsel.

Jeremy Blosser has recently cited Patrick Henry's appeal to patriots in Virginia in 1775: "Henry's argument was simple: while `it is natural for men to indulge in the illusions of hope,' we must consider the `lamp of experience' to determine if there is cause for such hope. `I know of no way of judging the future but by the past,' he said. `And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?'" And so Henry argued for defensive war--stand and fight the abuse.

That same question is what we must ask ourselves now - will we stand and fight the abuse? To continue with Mr. Blosser's argument, "What has there been in the conduct of the RPT leadership for the last ten years to justify the hopes that they will [follow the law]? Very few would claim the current leadership is redeemable, of course, or that diplomacy with them serves a purpose other than marking time... They believe they are above the law and the electoral process itself and will abuse and violate and quash all that is needed to achieve their ends."

Medina is available to speak on this issue and may be contacted via email: dmedina @ prudentia . us or on her cell phone 979-253-0220.