|
Ralph Goin
Rad Field
| |
01/19/04 What part of "No" does Garcia not get?
| 01/20/04
10 pm -- It was announced Tuesday night at the North Texas Latino Leadership
Coalition that the Supreme Court turned down Domingo Garcia's appeal of the
5th Circuit's ruling that affirmed Susan Hays' denial of a position on the
Dallas County Democratic Party ballot for Garcia as a candidate for LD 103. |
The 5th Circuit denied Domingo Garcia's appeal of their
ruling, but not before Dr. & Mrs. Garcia tried to intimidate a critic who has a
contract with the city.
On Tuesday, January 12th, the 5th Circuit denied the appeal
Garcia and his excuse for an
attorney filed to get his name on the Democrat's ballot after Dallas County
Democratic Party Chair Susan Hays said he was ineligible -- just because he
doesn't live in Legislative District 103 as state law requires.
On Thursday, January 15th, the 5th Circuit denied the appeal Garcia and his
excuse for an attorney filed requesting they overturn their ruling on January
12th. In their second ruling on the matter, the 5th was even
more blunt.
The 5th pretty much said -- stop this foolishness! |
|
|
Officer CS:
I haven't
heard anything about the "meeting" (more likely
confrontation) between Domingo and Elba Garcia
and Estanislao Rodriguez.
Can you share details or provide a
link that can shed light on this?
I don't think there is much that
can be done about it, other than public outcry.
Every time I drive by Dr. Garcia's
residence, which may or may not be Domingo Garcia's residence, I wonder
what goes on behind those white stucco walls.
I do envy the Garcia's residence.
I just wonder
who really lives there, or more to the point, who doesn't.
|
One reason the 5th was so quick to deny Garcia's appeal was the lack of
documentation supporting his claim of residency in LD 103.
Garcia only attached his own Affidavits to his Pleading -- that hardly
constitutes documentation or truthful facts. As DallasArena.com opined in an earlier edition, Garcia's word does not mean much
to people or the media in Dallas anymore. Apparently, Garcia's Affidavit
doesn't mean much to the 5th Circuit either.
Here's another question: If Domingo Garcia is an "officer of the Court"
(his being is a lawyer and a member of the State Bar of Texas, etc.), has he got
himself in deep trouble by filing false Affidavits with the Court?
Garcia claims he had an agreement with his apartment landlord and/or a "virtual"
lease that pre-dated the November 25th date of the lease, but he had to be a
resident of LD 103 on or before November 1. His landlord refuses to lie
for Garcia and furnish a falsified lease. So, Garcia had nothing to back
up his claim of a residency in the apartment he says is his residence.
Garcia did not move into the apartment on or before November 1 and admits to a
November 25 move-in. Garcia cannot claim he was living in the apartment,
even if he had a lease on November 1, which the landlord says was not the case.
Before the apartment section of Garcia's "virtual" residency saga, he claimed to
have leased a house with the intention to buy it. Garcia had no legitimate
lease on the house he claimed to have leased with the intent to buy. The
house is part of contested estate, and Sam Cortez nor anyone else had (or has)
the right to lease the house, sell the house or even loan the house to Garcia or
anyone else.
We hear Sam Cortez's wife once worked in Garcia's law office or as a
campaign staffer, and their families are friends. That
eliminates Garcia claiming not to know Sam Cortez did not have control of the
house Garcia claimed to have leased.
A non-lawyer doing a pro se appeal might try to pull Garcia's
no-documentation ruse, but Garcia has been practicing law a long time.
A local journalist suggested Garcia is doing all this to keep his name high
profile to attract clients. Apparently, Garcia doesn't think his clients
read anything beyond the headlines, and don't care if their lawyer lies to the
Court whenever he finds it convenient.
Is this something the State Bar Grievance Committee should be checking out?
If Domingo knowingly filed false Affidavits with the 5th Circuit, is this
something for which Garcia should be sanctioned? Should District Attorney
Bill Hill be looking into criminal charges against Garcia for filing false
election forms?
Of more concern to DallasArena.com is that little visit that Elba and Domingo Garcia paid to
Estanislao Rodriguez who
wrote a letter to the DMN Editor criticizing Garcia for falsely claiming to live
in LD 103. DallasArena.com also published
the letter from Estanislao
Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez teaches martial arts in at least one
City of Dallas Recreation Center in Oak Cliff on a contract basis.
Elba and Domingo Garcia not only showed up at his work place (a city recreation
center), but they had copies of his city background checks and contract papers
to try to intimidate him further.
We hear one of Dr. Elba's council assistants requested the paper work on Mr.
Rodriguez. What possible reason could Dr. Elba have for wanting to see a
contract for an obscure martial arts teacher at a recreation center? More,
isn't it a violation of the City Ethics Code to use a city employee for
political purposes? Isn't that what the wife of that Confessed and
Convicted Bribe Taker argued when she claimed Mayor Miller asked a staff person
to get a podium for her press conference?
That turned out to be a bogus claim. Of course, the lovely Yolanda Lara
had her hands in that activity. What you want to bet she secured the
documentation on Estanislao Rodriguez for Elba and Domingo Garcia to use to
intimidate him?
City employees and possibly contractors cannot openly
endorse any candidate for Mayor or the City Council, but a partisan race like for the
Democrat's nomination for the State Legislative District 103 does not fall in
that restricted area.
There was absolutely no excuse for either Elba
or Domingo Garcia, individually or as a couple, to go where Mr. Rodriguez works
to "visit" with him about his letter to the DMN editor -- other
than to imply "we know who you are and where you work".
Does this fall under "official oppression"?
Here is the Court's
most recent Order:
| |
 |
| |
What do you think?
| |
|
