|
Wilma Avalos
Brandon Rodriguez
| |
01/08/04 Long on Audacity - Short on
Integrity!
It's hard to discuss Domingo
Garcia's latest stunt seriously, because it is so nutty. One person might
describe his efforts to get on the ballot for State Legislative District 103 by
hook or crook as boldacious. The rest of us just dismiss it as another
desperate effort by Domingo Garcia to stay in the limelight.
Garcia subscribes to the theories -- "no press is bad press" and "say whatever
you want about me, but spell my name right and use it often."
A local journalist opines Garcia sees all this media attention as good for his
law practice. The kind of people Garcia represents like seeing their
lawyer looking like a fool in public. |
|
|
Jay Narey:
I enjoy your updates from
time to time still.
I can count on you to have your finger on the
'pulse' of the City.
Even though I'm a Democrat, I, too,
do NOT like Domingo Garcia. He's awful.
I am impressed with our new County
Chair,
Susan Hays,
and know her fairly well.
She's a pretty sharp cookie.
|
That said, Garcia is stretching the envelope of credibility now.
 |
Garcia defends residency outside wife's council
district
09:06 PM CST on Wednesday, January 7, 2004
By FRANK TREJO / The Dallas Morning News |
Citing his House
goal, he calls questions about couple 'political attack'
Dallas City Council
member Elba Garcia said Wednesday that she lives in the council district she
was elected to represent, even though her husband, Domingo Garcia, has filed
to run for a state legislative seat outside the district.
"Obviously, I live in District 1.
About anything else, you'll have to ask my husband," Dr. Garcia said.
Mr. Garcia called any attempt to
question why the couple had different legal residences a "political attack."
. . . Susan Hays, chairwoman of the Dallas County
Democratic Party, declared him ineligible to run for the House District 103
seat in the March 9 Democratic primary. . . . did
not prove he had lived in the district since Nov. 1, 2003. Under election
law, Mr. Garcia would have to live in the district for a year before the
November 2004 general election.
Mr. Garcia on Tuesday asked the 5th
Court of Appeals in Dallas to overturn Ms. Hays' decision. He said he had
leased a house in District 103 on Sept. 1 with the intention of eventually
buying it, but later moved to an apartment in the district after learning
the house wouldn't be for sale.
. . . Mr. Garcia stressed again Wednesday that his
legal residence is in District 103 and objected to speculation about him and
his wife.
"Nobody said anything when I was in
the state Legislature and lived in Austin for six months," . ...
"We're house shopping for a house that's in both
districts. And we've already seen several." . . . |
This is beyond amazing.
Let's take Trejo's report apart a little before I share some excerpts from
Garcia's pleading in the Fifth Circuit.
 |
Dallas City Council
member Elba Garcia said Wednesday that she lives in the council district she
was elected to represent, even though her husband, Domingo Garcia, has filed
to run for a state legislative seat outside the district.
"Obviously, I live in District 1.
About anything else, you'll have to ask my husband," Dr. Garcia said.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew Dr. Elba would not lie.
I know she loves her husband dearly and her family is very important to her,
but when asked point blank about where her family lives, she would not lie. |
| |
|
|
Mr. Garcia called any attempt to question
why the couple had different legal residences a "political attack."
|
| |
|
It is clear that Garcia views
the "truth" as a threat. When a couple of people are married with two
sons and one of them starts claiming a different address for his residence,
there is a physical indication that the two people are not a couple anymore.
Of course, that would be a logical
assumption, and logic
should never be applied when dealing with Domingo Garcia.
|
| |
|
|
. . . Susan Hays, chairwoman of the Dallas County
Democratic Party, declared him ineligible to run for the House District 103
seat in the March 9 Democratic primary. . . . did
not prove he had lived in the district since Nov. 1, 2003. Under election
law, Mr. Garcia would have to live in the district for a year before the
November 2004 general election. |
| |
|
First, he did not move his
family to 2823 Ingersoll (the house that wouldn't sell). Second, he
didn't move into the alleged bachelor's pad (apartment) at 1312 Winding
Brook Ln. #214 until 11/25/03 (way too late to qualify for Nov. 2, 2003
residency. |
| |
|
|
Mr. Garcia on Tuesday asked the 5th Court
of Appeals in Dallas to overturn Ms. Hays' decision. He said he had leased a
house in District 103 on Sept. 1 with the intention of eventually buying it,
but later moved to an apartment in the district after learning the house
wouldn't be for sale. |
| |
|
He did nothing to establish
the 2823 Ingersoll house as his residency -- no drivers license change, no
voter registration change. |
| |
|
|
. . . Mr. Garcia stressed again Wednesday that his
legal residence is in District 103 and objected to speculation about him and
his wife. |
| |
|
Well, he can object all he
wants, but if he is claiming to have a legal residence in LD 103 and his
wife lives in LD 104, people are going to speculate. My primary
speculation is why Dr. Elba puts up with such a lunatic. |
| |
|
|
"Nobody said anything when I was in
the state Legislature and lived in Austin for six months," . ...
"We're house shopping for a house that's in both
districts. And we've already seen several." . . . |
| |
|
Domingo, Domingo --
legislators do not claim their Austin residences as their permanent homes.
Don't you hope he tries to sell that one to the Fifth Circuit? |
| |
Garcia's pleading is as ludicrous as his quotes cited by Trejo. You will
wonder about his attorney's connection to reality as you read some of the
statements in the pleading:
Statement
of Facts: |
The respondent,
Ms. Hays, subsequently informed Mr. Garcia by letter dated January 5, 2004
that, in her opinion, certain public records conclusively showed he was
ineligible ... on the ground that his residence was not in District 103 as
of November 1,2003 ... Specifically, she relied on (1) Mr. Garcia's voter
registration, which was changed to an address within District 103 on
December 16, 2003; (2) Dallas Central Appraisal District Records, showing
that Mr. Garcia claimed a homestead exemption on a property outside of
District 103; and (3) Mr. Garcia's Texas Driver's License, which showed the
same address as the homestead, outside of District 103. ...
|
| |
|
The truth,
however, is that on August 30, 2003, Domingo Garcia leased a single-family
home at 2823 Ingersoll, Dallas, Texas, 75208, with the
intention of buying it and making it his permanent home. ... Mr.
Garcia continued to lease the house until late November, 2003, when Cortez
agreed to release him from his lease contract ... On or about
November 25, 2003, Mr. Garcia moved into an
apartment at 1312 Winding Brook Lane ... also with the intention of living
there indefinitely. ... Mr. Garcia signed a written lease for the
apartment on December 16, 2003, and he
still resides there. |
| |
|
Arguments and
Authorities |
II. The Public
Records Relied on by the Respondent are Not Conclusive on the Issue of Mr.
Garcia's Residence.
The respondent disqualified Mr. Garcia from the ballot on the
ground that the public records in her possession "conclusively" established
that he was not a resident of District 103 on or before November 1, 2003.
The controlling statute provides permits the respondent to declare a
candidate ineligible if (1) the information on the candidate's application
for a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for the
office; or (2) facts indicating that the candidate is
ineligible are conclusively established by another record. ... |
| |
|
... None of the
other documents relied upon by the respondent in this case are capable of
conclusively establishing that relator's residence was outside District 103
on the relevant date. |
| |
A. The
Test for Residence is Subjective
The Election Code states that "residence means domicile, that is,
one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return
after any temporary absence."
... The Supreme Court has said that "the term 'residence' is an elastic one
and is extremely difficult to define. ... Volition, intention and
action are all elements to be considered in determining where a person
resides and such elements are equally pertinent in denoting the permanent
residence or domicile." ... Thus, the
focus in determining the residence of a voter is on the voter's home and
fixed place of habitation. ... |
| |
B. The Public
Records Cannot Conclusively Establish Subjective Intent
None of the public records relied upon by the respondent, either
individually or collectively, can "conclusively " establish that relator is
ineligible for the office ....
The public records at issue in this case are the homestead
exemption shown the county tax rolls, the candidate's driver's license, and
the candidate's voter registration. None
are conclusive when disputed by Mr. Garcia's testimony. ...
(iii) Driver's Licenses are not conclusive.
... a driver's license record cannot be conclusive on the issue of
whether Mr. Garcia had actually moved and intended to change his residence.
Mr. Garcia's testimony is that he simply forgot
to change it at first, then delayed changing it for a short period of time
while he was looking for a new place to live. |
| |
C.
Conclusion
Neither the respondent nor this Court has the power to decide a
disputed fact question. Whatever the
truth is, the point is that tax rolls, voter's registrations
and driver's licenses are all simply evidence, capable of being controverted,
and cannot be considered "conclusive" on their face .... |
| |
I wish this was something I had
made up, but it is not. At no time did Domingo Garcia move his family to
either the house on Ingersoll or his bachelor's pad at 1312 Winding Brook Lane.
If he intended to make either residence his permanent home, he would have moved
his family. That's assuming things are OK at
home.
For Garcia to "object" to speculation about his marriage is funny. That's
like a bank robber wearing a mask, holding a weapon and telling the media that
he objects to anyone speculating he intends to do something illegal.
That's what Domingo Garcia is doing with all this foolishness -- trying to rob
the residents of LD 103. He wants to deprive us from being represented by
someone who is committed to our community and district. He and his
political hacks want to steal our legislative seat.
The home Domingo Garcia once shared
with Dr. Elba Garcia at 500 E. 5th St. is a beautiful house in an historic
district. We hear it has a wine cellar.
If by hook or crook Garcia winds up on the ballot for LD 103, I personally
intend to go to the Tax Assessor's Office and start the process to get his
homestead exemption pulled from his 5th street property. Garcia cannot
have it both ways. He cannot have a homestead exemption on property where
he does not live.
The guy is a lawyer. He is playing with technicalities, when the rest of
us are following the rules.
At this point, what Garcia is doing is insulting and embarrassing. If he
thinks anyone who actually lives in Legislative District 103 is going to forget,
he's out of his mind. Of course, he very likely has gone over the deep
end.
Garcia has hired vote harvesting thugs to work his campaign -- political hacks
who don't live in LD 103 -- one doesn't even live in Dallas County. We
hear one Garcia campaign consultant showed up inebriated at the DCDP filing
party and pulled what is becoming a regular stunt of trying to intimidate the
opposition. "Bang, you're dead!" That is what the consultant said to
Garcia's opponent.
Susan Hays and the Dallas County Democratic Party are right to stand firm on
this issue. For too long, Dallas politicos have let crooks control the
elective process. Local judges have been very timid about enforcing common
sense.
Garcia's latest con game is infuriating. He wants to defy common sense and
common law. We know residency issues can be "loosey-goosey" when an
unmarried person is involved from the precedent set by politicians like Chris
Luna. When a candidate has a family and claims to have just celebrated his
18th wedding anniversary, where that family lives is obviously where the
candidate lives.
Susan Hays correctly relied on the public documents Garcia's attorney dismisses
as minor details in her decision to deny Garcia a spot on the Democrat's primary
ballot from LD 103.
The fact that his wife and two sons live at 500 E. 5th Street in LD 104 is all
the evidence any court should need to tell Domingo Garcia he is a liar and does
not live anywhere in LD 103.
It is ludicrous for Garcia's attorney to claim Garcia was living in an apartment
on November 25th, where he lived for a couple of weeks BEFORE signing a
lease. No apartment manager is going to let someone move into their
building before signing a lease. Besides, Garcia was living at 500 E. 5th
at Christmas - with his family.
Domingo Garcia's gall is appalling.
| |
|
