The Editor - LULAC Pandora's Box The Editor - The LULAC lawsuit against Domingo Garcia to have a district

court in Dallas County declare that "... Domingo Garcia is not eligible to serve to serve as National President of LULAC for the reasons cited" is a LULAC Pandora's box. You have to win an election to serve. Domingo Garcia has not won the election. How can the court declare that Domingo Garcia cannot serve for a position that he has been elected to. The request should have read that Domingo Garcia be declared from being a candidate for the office of LULAC National President..." The problem with these prohibitions is that one is speculative, in the future event that has not happened yet and the other is not language that is found in the LULAC Constitution. A perfect constitution would lay out qualifications to be a candidate and qualifications to serve in office. The two might not be the same. In the LULAC lawsuit the legal attack is based on an event that has yet to happen. The Pandora's box for LULAC'ers is the future use of this dirty tactic to keep your opposition in LULAC at bay. Look at qualification c. under section 4 "Qualifications": "c. Be of good moral character and possess some demonstrated administrative ability necessary for the discharge of the duties pertaining to the office;"

Imagine future LULAC National Boards eliminating the opposition by taking them to court during the campaign for office asking the court to declare the person ineligible to run for office on the grounds that the person lacks "good moral character." The LULAC Constitution requires a major re-write in this area. There is no prohibitive language on the qualifications to run as a candidate or to be a candidate. LULAC permits nominations from the floor. Logically, a person who was never vetted for any qualifications could be a candidate for office on the spot, in an instance. In LULC conventions, the time between being nominated from the floor and going through your election count can be as short as ten minutes, your nomination speech, if you desire to make one or have one made for you, usually five minutes. Maybe that will be the future for LULAC, the lost of democracy where future candidate will fear announcing for office on the belief that they might be taken to court to block his/her candidacy, reserving any formal announcement until the day of the convention to be nominated from the floor. The logic of LULAC's lawsuit against Domingo Garcia is speculative. The request to the court is not to prohibit him from running from office, but to keep him from serving as National President, pure speculative. Courts are not in the game to bar speculative events. Maybe LULAC would want to bar Domingo Garcia from being the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. That would be to bar a person from a speculative event, a speculative happening. Maybe the National LULAC Board would want to bar a candidate from being a bad person, a bad husband or a bad wife or a bad parent, to refrain from drinking

or to refrain from pocketing money in the sale of LULAC property to a third party. The scene for court declarations to enjoin is endless. That is why courts are not keen on baring speculative events. The court will normally ask "show me the law and the prohibition in the law that you want barred." For example, you have to be a United States citizen to be President of the United States. Is the Tea Party going to ask the court to declare as a court every person who resides in the United States that they cannot serve in an office that they do not yet hold?" Such a request would be stupid. The request from LULAC to the court is likewise stupid. Domingo Garcia's burden is probably something that he can bear. That might not be the case for a person of limited financial means to seek higher office in LULAC. Would an average LULAC'er have the capacity to defend him/herself against a lawsuit mounted by Jeffery Tillotson, a high priced attorney charging in the range of $350.00 to $450.00 per hour, and Luis Vera and Manuel Escobar, who would want to be paid like the high priced attorneys that they are not. A lawsuit like the LULAC v Domingo Garcia is going to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, when everyone bills for their legal services and gets paid. What average LULAC'er has that kind of financial posturing to be a candidate for a LULAC national office. The lawsuit by LULAC destroys all that is left of democracy in LULAC. It is a shame if the decision to sue Domingo Garcia was based on legal advise provided to the LULAC National Board by Luis Vera and/or Manuel Escobar. It is more of a shame that any National LULAC Board member decided that suing Domingo Garcia was in the best interest of LULAC.

Filing lawsuits against candidates running for national office in LULAC is what we reading about in history as reasons for revolutions and civil wars. The Mexican Revolution serves as a stark reminder of how tyrannical acts lead to their own demise. "Born into a very wealthy landowning family in the north of Mexico, he was the proto-type of the respectable upper-class politician; a background which supplied the centre around which opposition to the dictatorship of Porfirio Daz could coalesce. Writing the book The Presidential Succession in 1910 (1908), he called on voters to prevent the sixth re-election of Porfirio Daz, which he considered anti-democratic. His vision was to lay the foundation for a democratic 20th Century Mexico, but without polarizing the social classes. To that effect, he founded the Anti-Reelectionist Party (later the Progressive Constitutional Party) and incited the Mexican people to rise up against General Daz, which ignited the Mexican Revolution in 1910. Arrested by the dictatorship shortly after being declared Presidential candidate by his party, the opposition leader escaped from prison and launched the Plan of San Luis Potos from the United States, in this manner beginning the Mexican Revolution." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_I._Madero