Plaintiffs Closing Argument 28mar2014_CONFORMED
Transcript of Plaintiffs Closing Argument 28mar2014_CONFORMED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 1 of 26
CHRIS FORD, ESQ., SBN 029437 LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ 85004 t: 602-688-5571 f: 888-447-3714 [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JOSE ROBERTO SOTO, MARIA SALAZAR, MAYRA MIRANDA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
Defendant John Mireles, LULAC’s director for the state of Arizona, invited Socorro
Esquibel, a longtime LULAC member, to a meeting at the Desert Diamond Hotel in Tucson the
night before LULAC’s 2013 Arizona convention, which took place on June 8, 2013. Transcript of
Evidentiary Hearing, Jan. 16, 2014 (“TRX1”), at 21:6-11, 21:23-24. This June 7, 2013 gathering
JOSE ROBERTO SOTO, MARIA SALAZAR, MAYRA DISCUA MINRANDA, Plaintiffs, v. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARIZONA CHAPTER (LULAC); JOHN MIRELES, in his capacity as an officer of LULAC, Arizona Chapter; DAVID HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as executive director of LULAC, Arizona Chapter; ANA VALENZUELA, in her capacity as national vice-president for youth for LULAC; MARI ALVARADO, in her capacity as president, LULAC Council # 1083; DOES 1-20, Defendants.
Case No. CV2013-008731 PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT Assigned to: Hon. Michael Herrod
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court*** Electronically Filed ***
K. Dyer, Deputy3/28/2014 9:37:00 PM
Filing ID 5790127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 2 of 26
turned out to be a strategy meeting the purpose of which was to prevent certain LULAC members
from Phoenix, San Luis and other locations from voting in the Arizona convention.1 TRX1, at
21:11-13, 21:20-22. Attending the meeting were Mr. Mireles, Defendant Ana Valenzuela, LULAC
president Margaret Moran and her husband, Oscar Moran, president of LULAC’s San Antonio
Chapter. TRX1 at 22:7-12, 220:11-221:2.
These leaders suspected that certain members from Phoenix, San Luis and other areas
(referred to herein at times as “Plaintiffs and class members”) were no disposed to vote for Ms.
Moran and their favored candidates in Arizona, and therefore they planned to prevent those
members from voting. TRX1, at 22:25-23:2; 24:4-23, 33:6-12; 79:2-8; 254:19-255:1. Defendants
even plotted to prepare for the eventuality that Plaintiffs and class members would become upset at
Defendants for thwarting their vote at the Arizona convention set to take place the next day and
engage in protest, so they made sure there would be security or police present. TRX1, at 33:18-
34:4.
The Ploy to Invalidate Miguel Zazueta’s Membership
To accomplish their objective of thwarting Plaintiffs and class members from voting,
Defendants created a pretext: They claimed that longtime member Miguel Zazueta was not a
member in good standing, and therefore the approximately 38 councils he sponsored, which
counted among their members Plaintiffs and class members, hand not been properly chartered.
Testimony revealed that Defendant Mireles had a motive to rid LULAC’s rolls of Mr.
Zazueta: He was running against Defendant Mireles for Arizona state director. Transcript of
Evidentiary Hearing, Feb. 12, 2014 (“TRX2”), at 245:13-17.
The genesis of Defendants’ plot is unclear. For example, one of Defendants’ witnesses
testified that Mr. Zazueta was deemed ineligible “around the end of May” 2013, “because questions
were already being asked,” TRX2, at 246:8-13. Another of Defendants’ witnesses, Defendant
1 Defendants’ witnesses consistently insisted on referring to this meeting as a “reception.”
E.g. TRX2, at 220:2-3 (“It was not a meeting. It was a reception”), 244:11-14 (meeting was “like a reception”).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 3 of 26
Hernandez, testified that he had an “ongoing conversation” with Manuel Escobar, LULAC’s
national legal advisor who later issued a so-called “legal opinion” invalidating Mr. Zazueta’s
membership, as early as late April 2013 regarding standing of Arizona delegates. See TRX2, at
300:13-301:7.
After the June 8, 2013 Arizona convention, Mr. Hernandez asked Mr. Escobar for a legal
opinion concerning the standing of Mr. Zazueta’s membership. TRX2, at 300:13-19. Before Mr.
Escobar responded, Guadalupe (“Lupe”) Morales, LULAC’s national membership director,
informed Mr. Zazueta that he supposedly was not a member in good standing on June 11, 2013, one
day before the date of Mr. Escobar issued his legal opinion, which was June 12, 2013. Exhibits 16-
18; TRX2, at 76:15-17, 135:18-20, 136:13-137:10. Defendants were unable to explain how the
national membership director was empowered to issue what is in effect a legal opinion one day
before Mr. Escobar issued his legal opinion. See TRX2, at 139:23-140:10, 151:13-24, 154:8-23;
Exhibits 16-18.
Mr. Escobar’s testimony was equivocal as to whether Ms. Morales relied on his legal
opinion in communicating that Mr. Zazueta supposedly was not a member in good standing or
whether she came up with that idea on her own. See TRX2, at 73:3-15. For her part, Ms. Morales
testified that she “found out” that Miguel Zazueta supposedly was not a member in good standing.
TRX2, at 140:17-20.
However, under questioning from the Court, Ms. Morales conceded that she did not check
the database to determine Mr. Zazueta’s status when the new councils he sponsored applied for
membership. See TRX2, at 157:14-24. The witness then, after having given clear and concise
testimony, suddenly professed to have memory problems when the Court asked her who called her
after the Arizona convention to tell her about Mr. Zazueta, but when pressed, she said Defendant
Mireles – Mr. Zazueta’s opponent for LULAC’s Arizona state director – made that call. TRX2, at
158:5-23. This testimony leads to the inference that Defendant Mireles made sure Mr. Zazueta was
declared ineligible so as to eliminate competition for the Arizona leadership post.
Generally, it is against LULAC’s practice to admit councils than suddenly reject them,
unless the councils (not their sponsors) have not paid dues, or if there is some sort of error, then
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 4 of 26
LULAC would send the money back and assist the council in getting chartered. TRX2, at 116:6-14,
127:15-24. In the present matter, LULAC initially admitted all of the 38 councils to which Plaintiffs
and class members belonged plus up to a dozen others councils, took their registration money, but
then “corrected” themselves by deciding that Mr. Zazueta supposedly was not a member in good
standing, and therefore those councils had not validly been formed. See TRX2, at 72:21-73:16;
Exhibit 18; see TRX2, at 127:6-10 (defendants approved new councils’ charters “then arbitrarily
and capriciously” took then away). Defendants never did return the registration money. TRX2, at
159:19-162:6; Exhibit 25.
The Evidence Shows the Determination Regarding Mr. Zazueta Was Without Merit
Defendants failed to process the membership for 2013 of Miguel Zazueta, claiming he was
not a member in good standing for having failed to pay his membership dues. TRX1, at 23:3-24:3.
Mr. Zazueta had submitted a check with his 2013 membership application, but Defendants held the
check rather than cashing it. TRX1, at 23:9-14. Significantly, although Connie Martinez and Miguel
Zazueta came from the same company and both applied and sent checks for membership, LULAC
prevented only Miguel Zazueta from attaining membership in good standing while allowing Connie
Martinez to attain membership. TRX1, at 106:11-107:1.
According to LULAC’s governing documents, an active member who is in arrears on his
dues for 3 months is suspended from membership “and so advised by the Secretary of his/her
Council immediately,” but can reinstate membership simply by paying his dues. LULAC bylaws,
art. III, §3(a); TRX2, at 83:11-23. Mr. Escobar testified that reinstatement of voting privileges are
delayed for 30 days past the date a member pays up his dues so as to be reinstated as a member.
TRX2, at 80:14-21. However, Mr. Escobar could find no support in the LULAC constitution or
bylaws for that assertion. E.g. TRX2, at 84:14-19.
Defendants’ witnesses, including their national membership director, testified that councils
must register 30 days prior to a national convention to be considered in good standing and be
accorded voting privileges. E.g. TRX2, at 148:21-23. However, Defendants waived this rule when
convenient. For example, Ms. Esquibel to registered four days prior to the Arizona convention (thus
18 days before the National convention), yet she was credentialed to vote at both. E.g. TRX2, at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 5 of 26
148:24-149:4; see TRX2, at 225:17-226:12 (Ms. Esquibel did not have paperwork showing her
councils had been chartered 30 days before the Arizona convention, yet those councils were
credentialed to vote), 265:21-267:6 (credentialing committee chair for 2013 National convention
did not deny that Ms. Esquibel was credentialed and certified to vote, even though she registered
only two weeks prior to the National convention).
Testimony reveals that notwithstanding Defendants’ too-convenient position that Miguel
Zazueta was not a member of good standing for allegedly not having paid his dues, it is far from
clear whether he in fact was not in good standing on June 12, 2013, when Mr. Escobar issued his
legal opinion. First, LULAC offers extensions to members in a given year within which to pay dues
before their memberships lapse, and in 2013 the extension lasted until April 10, 2013 or April 15,
2013. Compare TRX2, at 111:9-24 (April 10, 2013) with TRX2, at 155:13-19 (April 15, 2013). The
three-month grace-period could begin at the end of the extension, so in effect a person who was a
member in 2012 could have remained in good standing until July 10, 2013, so long as before the
latter date he paid his dues. See TRX2, at 111:25-114:13.
Defendants conceded that Mr. Zazueta had been a member in 2012 TRX2, at 138:14-15,
155:8-12. And there was no testimony as to whether LULAC’s secretary or his/her council notified
Mr. Zazueta of his alleged lapse in membership, a necessary predicate for the grace period to
terminate. LULAC bylaws, art. III, §3(a). Moreover, Mr. Escobar was unable to ascertain whether
Mr. Zazueta’s had been given an extension of time within which to pay his dues, and thus whether,
in fact, he was not a member in good standing at the relevant time. See TRX2, at 62:9-24.
Thus, in summary, while Defendants elicited repeated testimony that theoretically a new
council would have to be registered 30 days prior to the national convention for its members to be
eligible to vote, e.g. TRX2, at 156:20-157:6, given the extensions for allowed to 2012 members in
good standing – such as Miguel Zazueta – lasting as late as April 15, 2013 to pay to renew their
memberships, plus the three-month grace period enunciated in the bylaws, Defendants never did
establish for certain that in fact Miguel Zazueta actually was not a member in good standing
when he sponsored the new Arizona councils in April 2013, see Exhibit 25; they merely opined
such to be the case. E.g. Exhibit 16.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 6 of 26
Arizona Convention
Fearing that election results in Arizona may not go their way, Defendants created schemes
to thwart Plaintiffs and class members (i.e., newer LULAC members from Phoenix and San Luis)
from voting at the Arizona convention, which took place June 8, 2013. Approximately four dozen
LULAC members from among Plaintiffs and class members attended the Arizona convention.
TRX1, at 120:14-16; TRX2, at 233:17-21. Defendants hatched these plans, despite, as testimony
reveals, the fact that the names in Exhibit 8 represent those of LULAC members in good standing
from Arizona, including Plaintiffs and class members. See TRX1, at 250:3-253:21, 261:23-25.
Defendants admit to having prepared the Arizona membership roster dated on June 7, 2013
admitted as Exhibit 8, but they also gave instructions to shred that roster. TRX2, at 146:12-19,
152:5-154:7, 158:24-159:6.
Defendants then issued another roster – apparently prepared especially for of use at
the second evidentiary hearing on February 12, 2014, considering that it is dated January 28,
2014, long after it could have been useful for the June 2013 conventions – showing Arizona
councils to which Plaintiffs and class members belonged to be in “bad” standing. TRX2, at 141:13-
144:14; Exhibit 19.
The Arizona convention was advertised to offer registration from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. that day.
Exhibit 1, at 2. Testimony makes clear that LULAC did not adhere to that schedule, at minimum
raising questions as to the fairness of the registration process for that convention. E.g., TRX1, at
31:4-32:10; 256:3-10. In fact, Defendants’ witnesses could not keep their stories straight as to when
registration took place at the Arizona Convention. E.g. TRX2, at 215:6-14, 218:24-219:2
(registration open only from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.), 231:6-8 (registration from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.),
238:2-17 (registration from 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.), 238:24-239:6 (same witness, shown Exhibit 1,
changes her mind, testifies that registration was from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.); see Exhibit 24 (purported
minutes of Arizona Convention, with no notation as to opening or closing of registration), TRX2, at
240:17-20, 241:7-13; see also TRX2, at 221:8-16, 221:23-223:10, 231:24-25, Exhibit 28
(Defendants issued a revised agenda, the only change for which was to shorten the registration time
by an hour, to 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.; testimony did not make clear exactly when or to whom the revised
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 7 of 26
agenda was sent).
Plaintiff Soto, a dues-paying member of LULAC who was secretary of LULAC council no.
1152, arrived at the Arizona convention site at 9:15 a.m. and registered, but Defendants made no
credentialing table available. TRX1, at 111:5, 111:15-112:1, 113:9-14, 114:18-19, 155:12-13,
171:24-172:8, 196:15-19. Nonetheless, Defendants led Plaintiff Soto to believe “with no
ambiguity” that he was credentialed and thus qualified to vote at the Arizona convention, having
registered and purportedly been credentialed at the registration table. TRX1, at 112:1-11, 167:21-
168:1, 171:24-172:8, 172:11-173:9, 201:8-10 (Plaintiff Soto brought the proper documentation, and
he “was led to believe that [he] was a delegate explicitly by the registration table”); see also TRX1,
at 256:17-23. Yet Defendants barred Plaintiff Soto from voting. E.g. TRX1, at 148:25-149:24,
194:9-13. Later, Defendants so much as admitted at hearing that LULAC members should
“know better than” to trust Defendants’ word as to whether the member has been registered
and credentialed to vote at a convention. TRX1, at 167:24-168:9.
In addition, Defendants allowed groups of members they perceived as supportive of Ms.
Moran’s chosen candidates to breeze through the registration process without going through the
requirement of submitting delegate letters – i.e. those members were given “preferential treatment,”
according to unchallenged testimony, TRX1, at 29:16-17, 34:5-36:13. On the other hand,
Defendants initially refused to accept delegate letters from the Phoenix and San Luis councils, of
which named and class Plaintiffs were members. TRX1, at 28:19-30:14.
Defendants did end up Plaintiffs and class members the exact same sort of badge that
Plaintiff Soto had been given, which displayed the member’s name and council number and which
Defendants had “with no ambiguity” led Plaintiff Soto to believe qualified him to vote in the day’s
proceedings. TRX1, at 112:1-11, 117:17-118:20. However, Defendants outright prevented
Plaintiffs and class members from becoming credentialed to vote at the Arizona Convention.
TRX1, at 127:6-15. Thus, Plaintiffs and class members had paid registration fees to attend the
Arizona convention but they were not allowed to participate in the nomination vote; i.e.,
Defendants had no problem taking Plaintiffs’ and class members’ money, but they did have a
problem with letting Plaintiffs and class members vote that day. TRX1, at 118:11-21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 8 of 26
At least some Plaintiffs and class members arrived after the 10 a.m. registration cut-off time
on June 8, 2013, according to sworn testimony, but testimony also reveals that Defendants
nonetheless registered and gave delegate badges to certain Plaintiffs or class members,
misleading them into believe that they would be permitted to vote that day, yet ultimately
preventing them from voting. Verified Complaint, June 14, 2013, ¶¶ 27-29; see TRX1, at 157:22-
158:5. Defendants’ flimsy excuse for taking Plaintiffs’ and class members’ money, giving them
badges indicating that they were registered and credentialed to vote, then prohibiting them from
voting, was that they had not been credentialed “by the credentials committee.” TRX1, at 122:21-
123:1.
In the morning, Defendants directed Plaintiffs and class members to remain in a cafeteria
that was physically separate from the location where Defendants held nominations on the morning
of June 8, 2013. TRX1, at 31:13-32:10, 113:21-24, 114:13-115:12, 116:3-19. Defendants held
nominations of their chosen candidates by acclimation while keeping Plaintiffs and class members
secluded in the cafeteria. TRX1, at 116:3-117:7.
During the afternoon voting session, Defendants did permit Plaintiffs and class members
into the room where the vote took place, but they refused to seat Plaintiffs and class members to
vote. TRX1, at 32:11-33:17; TRX1, at 121:12-122:25. Defendants failed to follow Robert’s Rules
of Order during the voting session. TRX1, at 119:25-120-2. Defendant Mari Alvarado led the
afternoon voting proceedings. TRX1, at 121:7-12.
Upon learning that Defendants would not seat them to vote, Plaintiffs attempted to obtain
clarification from Defendants regarding why they were not allowed to participate in the vote.
TRX1, at 123:13-16. Ms. Alvarado became “frustrated” and proclaimed candidates from her list to
be elected by acclamation, putting a sudden end to the proceedings. TRX1, at 123:17-124:19,
187:17-24. While the members seated to vote – who constituted about 60 percent of those in the
room – were “confused” by the sudden election by acclamation, the Phoenix members (i.e.
Plaintiffs and some class members), or 40 percent of those in attendance, were left standing, cut off
from participating. TRX1, at 124:16-126:25; compare TRX2, at 233:17-21 with TRX2, at 288:9-14
(Defendants’ witnesses testified that Phoenix and San Luis delegations barred from voting at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 9 of 26
the Arizona convention numbered 40 to 50, while 82 other delegates were credentialed to
vote).
Defendants purposely created the confusion so as to get the sudden vote by acclamation to
go the way they had planned, such that Ms. Alvarado proclaimed the election of Defendants’ pre-
determined candidates by acclamation before the voters’ hands were raised to indicate for whom
they voted. TRX1, at 187:4-188:10. Thus, even though some raised their hands in an attempt to
vote, the delegates whom defendants permitted to be seated to vote appeared to have no effect on
the outcome of the election. TRX1, at 187:11-188:17; see also TRX1, at 188:24-189:14 (“it was
fast track, expedited, confusing”). According to further testimony, “Mari Alvarado . . . should know
and explain clearly . . . the procedures. And that was not done.” TRX1, at 190:16-18. Defendants’
own witness ultimately admitted that it “is correct” that “[t]here was no democracy” at the
Arizona convention, because Defendants’ own candidates constituted the only one slate put up
for a vote that day. TRX2, at 249:5-250:9.
National Convention
At LULAC’s National convention in Las Vegas, Defendants plotted ways to rig the election
by adding voters to the rolls of LULAC councils they believed supportive of incumbents that
Defendants supported and prepared to thwart or prevent Plaintiffs and class members from voting
in the national assembly, which took place on June 22, 2013. E.g. TRX1, at 180:2-9.
Approximately 147 LULAC members from 38 councils constituting Plaintiffs and class members
attended the National convention. TRX1, at 131:18-22. According to testimony, had Defendants not
blocked Plaintiffs and class members from voting at the national assembly, the outcome of the
election may well have been different. TRX1, at 180:10-13.
Defendants attempted to win the favor of Ms. Esquibel and the Tucson Councils by
paying for at least some of the cost to transport the Arizonans to Las Vegas and for their
lodging during the convention. See, e.g., TRX1, at 224:3-20, 238:2-239:21, 245:9-247:18.
Specifically, according to testimony, Oscar Moran, husband of LULAC’s national president, signed
checks from the account of LULAC council no. 4303 – of San Antonio, Texas, of which Mr. Moran
is president – to Joseph Cordero, president of LULAC council no. 1191, TRX1, at 247:20-248:19,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 10 of 26
one of the Tucson Councils, to pay for two vans for transportation of Tucson Council members to
Las Vegas. TRX1, at 218:21-222:5.
Luis Vera, national general counsel for LULAC, and thus at minimum an agent for
Defendants, had cut a deal: if the Tucson Councils would support Ms. Moran, LULAC would pay
for vans to transport those members from Arizona to Las Vegas and for their lodging, and all
Tucson Council members would need to pay for is food and fuel for the vehicles. TRX1, at 225:1-8.
As part of that deal, Oscar Moran offered to pay for the vans and the lodging, but he welched on
that promise once he became aware that his attempts to buy allegiance were doomed to failure.
TRX1, at 239:5-240:4, 241:25-242:6; 239:20-21 (“agreement was to pay all amounts, and we were
going to vote for him until they got mad at us”). His failure to keep his end of the bargain
financially harmed Plaintiffs or class members. TRX1, at 241:17-24, 242:6-19 (LULAC member
Sandra Cordero DeSoto is owed approximately $1,800, money she needed to pay for her husband’s
dialysis).
In fact, Mr. Moran gave Ms. DeSoto, a delegate, not only checks as reimbursement for the
rental the vans on June 21, 2013, the day before the vote, but he also gave her $500 in cash so as
to buy her and other members’ votes, according to testimony that drew no objections and was not
controverted. TRX1, at 225:13-226:13, 230:20-23, 235:3-13, 242:21-23; see also TRX1, at 234:1-
21 (Mr. Moran pressured Ms. DeSoto to vote for Ms. Moran, saying, “you need to vote for her”).2
Defendants apparently paid to register council no. 1191, of which Joseph Cordero was president
and his mother, Sandra Cordero DeSoto, was a member. TRX1, at 223:20-24, 247:20-249:9.
As a further example of their efforts to corrupt the election process, Defendants deliberately
engaged in a practice of transferring alternates from councils that had their maximum number of
delegates available to vote to other councils that did not have a full complement of voters, so as to
2 Defendants may argue that Ms. DeSoto ended up voting for an opponent of Ms. Moran, and therefore she was not “deprived of due process.” See TRX1, at 227:4-230:15. However, whom Ms. DeSoto voted for is irrelevant. The testimony supports various causes of action asserted herein including fraud and deprivation of due process, the latter because obviously even an attempt to corrupt an election by buying votes taints the entire election, depriving all delegates, not merely Plaintiffs and class members, of due process.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 11 of 26
bolster the ranks of councils politically friendly to Ms. Moran et al. In Las Vegas two days before
the June 22, 2013 national assembly, Defendants, during a meeting in the Pompeii Room at
Caesar’s Palace (the National convention site), exposed their delegate-transferring plot to a witness
for Plaintiffs, Ms. Esquibel. TRX1, at 37:21-38:23.
According to testimony of Paul A. Martinez, LULAC member since 1980 who served as a
state LULAC director in New Mexico from 2006-2010, has served on the national board, served on
a committee that updated and finalized the LULAC constitution in effect in 2013, and ran the
elections for LULAC’s 2008 convention in Washington, D.C., delegate transferring, if it occurs,
must occur no fewer than 30 days prior to the convention and can involve only transfers
within a state. TRX2, at 92:16-93:24, 95:5-13, 102:1-16. Thus, Defendant’s attempts to transfer
delegates at the 2013 National convention violated LULAC’s constitution. TRX2, at 102:14-19.
Defendants pestered and pressured Ms. Esquibel, whose Tucson councils had between them
18 alternates, and others throughout the following day, June 21, 2013, to allow them to transfer
those alternates to Puerto Rico councils politically supportive to Defendants. TRX1, at 38:13-39:18,
233:3-23, 243:1-7, 258:25-259:24; see also TRX1, at 259:25-261:8 (LULAC council no. 1191
president Joseph Cordero was pressured to sign a letter transferring his alternates, but he
declined because he believed delegate-transferring was a means to rig elections). Ms. Esquibel also
declined to participate in Defendants’ delegate-transferring scheme,3 because she did not feel it was
right, prompting Mr. Moran to complain to her that he “invested so much money” to pay for her
councils’ hotel rooms “just to make sure” she would support Defendants, according to undisputed
testimony.4 TRX1, at 44:16-45:10 (internal quotation marks omitted), 54:21-25, 260:2-19.
3 Defendants asked witnesses on the stand regarding whether Tucson council delegates
actually were transferred, apparently attempting to set up the inference that there was no delegate transferring, there was no harm to the election. E.g. TRX1, at 231:1-232:8, 262:15-22. However, the very fact the Defendants attempted to transfer and pressured council leaders to transfer delegates provides factual support for Plaintiffs’ assertions that the elections were rigged, and defendants deprived Plaintiffs and class members of due process.
4 Defendants elicited testimony from their national fiscal officer, who handled hotel reservations for the 2013 convention, that LULAC typically does not obligate itself to pay for members’ rooms, except for its staff and board members. TRX2, at 165:20-166:7, 168:3-7, 171:3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 12 of 26
Defendants also set up a two-tier system of registration, wherein they allowed their
political allies to register quickly and conveniently. For example, Defendants set up a special
location in the Senate Room at Caesar’s Palace, where they allowed politically favored councils to
registered expeditiously, and sometimes whole councils or groups of councils were registered by
one member, according to undisputed testimony – in one case, a member from Brownsville, Texas
registered and obtained voting credentials for 65 people. TRX1, at 40:4-42:5, 257:23-258:11; see
TRX2, at 96:22-97:1. Mr. Moran managed affairs in the Senate Room much of that time, and he
even gave money from a bank pouch to politically favored registrants, along with T-shirts and
red ribbons signifying they were registered, credentialed and qualified to vote at the national
assembly, according to undisputed testimony. TRX1, at 41:10-43:5; TRX2, at 61:18-21. Defendants
did not accord Plaintiffs and class members such preferential treatment. TRX1, at 133:9-22.
Instead, Defendants gave LULAC members they suspected of not supporting the
incumbency second-class treatment. TRX1, at 44:7-15. For example, once Defendants learned that
Ms. Esquibel would not go along with their delegate-transferring ploy, they turned against her,
ejecting her from the Senate Room and requiring that she register her councils in extremely lengthy
registration lines reserved for Defendants’ political nemeses. TRX1, at 43:6-44:15, 45:14-20, 86:4-
6, 258:12-24.5 The two-tier registration system Defendants employed in 2013 was not typical for
national conventions. See TRX2, at 97:18-98:19. Ultimately, Defendants punished Ms. Esquibel for
declining to go along with their delegate-transferring plot by credentialing as voters in the national
assembly only seven of the 44 delegates and alternates who traveled to Las Vegas from Tucson and
Phoenix with Ms. Esquibel to attend the National convention. TRX1, at 49:1-20, 99:23-24.
(...Continued)
15. That fact, however, does not prove Defendants did not stray from their typical practice and attempt to persuade or pressure Ms. Esquivel and her Tucson Councils to vote for the incumbents by offering to and actually paying some portion of their travel expenses to the convention, as testimony demonstrates.
5 Mr. Escobar testified that he was in the Senate Room at relevant times and was not aware of any attempts by Defendants to engage in delegate transferring or expedite credentialing of politically favored councils, but that testimony is contravened by voluminous evidence and should be discarded. See TRX2, at 56:21-59:3, 61:5-14.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 13 of 26
Plaintiff Soto was one of the few among Plaintiffs and class members to be registered and
credentialed to vote in Las Vegas, but he witnessed Defendants’ subjecting numerous other
Plaintiffs and class members to second-class treatment and ultimately slamming the door on their
participation in the national assembly. For example, Mr. Soto guided other Plaintiffs and class
members through registration and attempted credentialing process. TRX1, at 132:20-133:5, 135:5-
7. Defendants did allow Plaintiffs and class members to register and took their registration money,
but they “rejected” Plaintiffs and class members from obtaining credentials. TRX1, at 133:1-5,
134:1-6. On June 21, 2013, the day before the national voting assembly, Defendants’ credentials
committee made Plaintiffs and class members wait hours in line, only to close the credentials
table two hours before the advertised time of closure on that date, claiming the committee was
“overwhelmed”. TRX1, at 134:11-135:3, 191:15-18, 192:20; TRX2, at 97:2-8.
Plaintiffs and class members attempted to appeal Defendants’ failure to credential them but
initially were given the run-around, ultimately ending up addressing Brandon Wilkes, LULAC’s
executive director. TRX1, at 136:1-7, 176:18-177:1. Mr. Wilkes told Plaintiff Soto that Manuel
Escobar, national legal advisor to LULAC, had issued his legal opinion claiming that because
Miguel Zazueta allegedly was not a member in good standing when he sponsored the new councils
from Phoenix and San Luis, members of those councils were deemed to be not in good standing.
TRX1, at 136:9-18; TRX2, at 42:25-43:25, 51:5-17, 62:3-8.
Though asked, Mr. Wilkes refused to show Mr. Escobar’s legal opinion to Plaintiffs and
class members, and he offered no explanation as to why LULAC closed the credentialing table two
hours early on June 21, 2013. TRX1, at 136:19-137:14. Addressed regarding Defendants’ having
closed down the credentialing table two hours early on June 21, 2013, Mr. Wilkes informed
Plaintiffs and class members that there would be another opportunity the following day. TRX1, at
192:6-13. Thus, having waited hours in line on June 21, 2013 only to face closure of the credentials
table before they could become credentialed, Plaintiffs and class members arose very early in the
morning on June 22, 2013, the day of the national voting assembly, so as to attempt once again to
get credentialed. On arrival to Caesar’s Palace, Plaintiffs and class members were greeted with a
400-person-long line to access LULAC’s credentialing table. TRX1, at 138:22-139:3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 14 of 26
Moreover, Defendants erected a roadblock in the corridor guarded by private security to
prevent those without the red ribbons signifying that they were credentialed to vote from entering
the voting assembly area. TRX1, at 139:13-20. Significantly, the credentials committee was beyond
the roadblock and inaccessible to all except those already credentialed. TRX1, at 139:21-24.
Accordingly, Defendants set up a Catch-22 situation in which a member who wanted to appeal
Defendant’s failure to credential him would have to appeal to the credentials committee, but
to access that committee he would need already to be credentialed. See TRX1, at 139:17-140:4,
192:6-18.
As a result, Defendants physically prevented LULAC members, including Plaintiffs and
class members, from appealing Defendants’ refusal to credential them to vote. TRX1, at 140:5-6,
179:19-180:1; see also TRX1, at 176:18-177:18 (Plaintiffs and class members had documentation
but could not get past the roadblock). Furthermore, the credentials committee refused to meet
Plaintiffs and class members at Defendants’ guarded roadblock, so Mr. Soto, who did have a
red ribbon, took Plaintiffs’ and class members’ registration files past the roadblock in an attempt to
address the credentials committee. TRX1, at 140:15-20. The credentials committee refused to hear
his case, giving him the “cold shoulder.” TRX1, at 140:20-141:8; accord, TRX2, at 130:5-11.
Former LULAC president Rick Dovlina, upon learning that the credentials committee6
refused to take Mr. Soto’s appeal on behalf of Plaintiffs and class members, requested that Mr.
Escobar’s legal opinion be withdrawn. TRX1, at 141:7-11. Mr. Dovlina proposed that the assembly
vote on whether to set aside Mr. Escobar’s legal opinion.7 TRX1, at 141:9-19, 145:15-18. A
6 Yolanda Rodriguez-Escobar – wife of national legal advisor Manuel Escobar, whose legal
opinion invalidated the charters of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ councils – chaired the credentials committee at LULAC’s 2013 National convention. TRX2, at 257:17-20, 258:11-14, 264:21-265:5. Thus, Ms. Rodriguez-Escobar –who, like her husband, was appointed to her post by Margaret Moran, TRX2, at 271:12-272:2 – chaired the committee that refused to hear Plaintiffs’ and class members’ appeal from the legal opinion invalidating their councils’ charters, which had been drafted by her husband, Manuel Escobar. She saw on conflict of interest in this arrangement. TRX2, at 268:9-15.
7 A vote by two-thirds majority at a national assembly is required to overturn a legal advisor’s opinion. Exhibit 15, LULAC Const, art. VIII, § 9g.(2), p. 38; TRX, at 52:5-54:2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 15 of 26
principal effect of this legal opinion is that a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, was
required to seat the Arizona councils at the national voting assembly. TRX2, at 202:6-18
A vote was taken, but it was not conducted by show of hands, roll call or secret ballot, as
called for in the LULAC constitution and bylaws, but rather by a stand-up vote, in which the aye
votes stood up and their numbers were estimated, then the same procedure was carried out for the
nay votes, producing ambiguity as to the result of the vote. TRX1, at 51:22-52:9, 142:20-144:12;
see TRX1, at 208:16-209:23 (votes at National convention not taken by show of hands, roll call or
secret ballot as envisioned in the LULAC constitution); TRX2, at 49:11-23 (Manual Escobar admits
that the vote was not taken by the three methods enunciated in the LULAC constitution).8
Defendants claimed that the vote did not carry. E.g. TRX1, at 183:4-10, 183:23-25; TRX2, at
54:25-55:3.
While Defendants may assert that their stand-up/estimate-the-vote-count method is
permitted under their 2013 Convention Rules,9 e.g. Exhibit 14, rule 5, they flouted those rules by
failing to have an election judge, time keeper and three counters at the election. TRX1, at 143:2-11;
Exhibit 14, rules 3-4. In fact, Defendants outright admitted to failing to follow rule 5 of the
Convention Rules, which allows for stand-up voting but further provides, “The head of each
delegation shall announce his/her council’s vote and the Election Judge shall repeat the vote to the
floor.” TRX2, at 88:20-89:4; accord, TRX2, at 109:22-110:5. The way this method typically works
is that each council president announces the council, and all members stand up to represent the
vote, and the vote counters check each voter’s credentials to make sure the person standing up is
really a delegate, “[a]nd usually it’s done by roll call.” TRX2, at 104:16-105:9.
8 Manual Escobar, Esq., Defendants’ national legal advisor, testified that votes at the
national voting assembly on June 22, 2013 were taken by the stand-up method, but that Defendants instructed voters to “show their hands and stand up when they did it … [s]o they can be seen.” TRX2, at 47:19-48:14. Defendants did not, however, count the raised hands. TRX2, at 48:21-23, 49:11-50:18. Mr. Escobar testified that it “was obvious” that the vote to overturn his opinion did not pass, TRX2, at 54:25-55:3, but such self-serving testimony lacks credibility.
9 The 2013 Convention Rules were “railroaded through,” i.e. not adopted properly by the assembly. TRX2, at 103:16-104:8.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 16 of 26
Defendants, however, did not follow that process in conducting their stand-up voting at
the 2013 convention. Defendants’ national legal advisor, Mr. Escobar, admitted on the witness
stand that rather than counting the voters’ supposedly raised hands, Defendants “estimated,” i.e.
Defendants’ purported vote counters “looked at the crowd and that [the vote did not carry] was their
determination.” TRX2, at 50:3-51:2. Thus, Defendants did not count votes. TRX2, at 105:10-16
(Defendants “basically judged by the naked eye and . . . guessed”), 109:13-19 (“no one” counted
votes), 117:19-23 (close vote, but “no one counted”), 194:4-5 (voting by ballot “was not optioned
for”), 207:24-208:3 (neither the election judge nor the vote counters actually counted the votes),
271:7-11 (no vote counting “by head,” but rather vote tallied “in [the] estimation” of the purported
vote counters). Mr. Escobar did testify, however, that the vote counters are “supposed” to count
votes then gave seemingly conflicting accounts of whether the vote counters in fact counted the
votes:
“Q: Did you observe these vote counters specifically counting votes?
“A: Yes, I mean, I saw them up there. The were – they were standing up above everybody.
They were on a – on a platform so that they could view the - the floor.” TRX2, at 90:12-16. On the
other hand, he conceded that no vote counts were announced, in violation of rule 5 of the
Convention Rules. See TRX2, at 90:17-25; accord, TRX2, at 105:14-106:3 (no counting of votes),
109:9-15 (no vote counting, just the election chair with “discretion to say – to declare the winner”).
Vote Counters Relegated to the Role of Affirming the Election Judge’s Opinion
LULAC’s election judge, Roger Rocha – who like Mr. Escobar and Ms. Rodriguez-Escobar
was appointed to his position by Margaret Moran – testified that he did use vote counters at the
2013 convention. See TRX2, at 194:13-195:6, 201:23-25. However, he conceded that the vote
counters did not actually count votes. E.g. TRX2, at 202:19-25 (asked for an exact vote count, Mr.
Rocha testified, “Cannot give you the exact numbers . . . [b]ecause it was a stand-up vote”). Instead,
when Defendants conducted a stand-up vote, Mr. Rocha, who told the court he supported Ms.
Moran’s candidacy, told the counters, “this is how I see the election. Do you agree of disagree?”
TRX2, at 194:20-23, 202:1-3. Thus, “the role of the three counters is to verify results of the
election” as determined by Mr. Rocha, rather than to actually count votes. TRX2, at 194:19-23.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 17 of 26
Not surprisingly, in “each one” of the elections, the vote counters confirmed the election
judge’s view of the election. TRX2, at 194:20-195:6. Also unsurprisingly, Defendants’ election
judge opined the uncounted vote regarding whether to overturn Mr. Escobar’s legal opinion barring
Plaintiffs and class members from voting in the national assembly was not close. TRX2, at 199:3-
200:5; but cf. TRX2, at 269:16-24 (Defendants’ witness “can’t even approximate” the number of
votes regarding seating the Arizona delegations at the voting assembly).
Mr. Rocha attempted to excuse his failure to follow convention rule 5 in conducing the vote
over whether to seat the Arizona delegation by distinguishing that vote as “regular business” rather
than an election, such that “an election rule does not apply,” but he cited no specific rule or LULAC
governing document provision supporting his position, and he ultimately admitted there was no
rule distinguishing votes on regular business from election contests. TRX2, at 204:5-205:18,
210:1-13. Worth noting is that Mr. Escobar self-servingly opined that there was “no need” for a roll
call of the vote to overturn the legal opinion he drafted that barred Plaintiffs and class members
from voting in the national convention. TRX2, at 207:12-17.
In summary, Defendants’ legal advisor testified that Defendants’ purported vote
counters “estimated” the number of voters on one side of an issue or the other, admitted that
the vote counters are supposed to count the vote, then testified that no vote counts were
announced as envisioned under convention rule 5. Further, Defendants’ election judge
admitted that for each vote, the supposed vote counters did not actually count votes, but
merely confirmed the election judge’s opinion, formed by “look[ing] at” the assembly hall, as
to who had won an election. See TRX2, at 194:13-195:6.
Defendants also cut off debate on Mr. Dovlina’s motion to set aside Mr. Escobar’s so-
called legal opinion, by cutting off electricity to and physically removing a microphone intended to
be used by delegates who have a right to address issues brought to a vote. TRX1, at 183:11-186:14,
213:21-23. Ms. Esquibel and Raymond Serra, among others, attempted by way of “point of order”
to request that a roll call vote be taken, since it was not clear whether the vote carried. TRX1, at
51:22-24, 210:2-212:17. As mentioned above, no roll call was taken on Mr. Dovlina’s motion. E.g.
TRX2, at 270:19-21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 18 of 26
Defendants specifically cut off access to the microphone to delegates who supported
setting aside Mr. Escobar’s legal opinion and allowing Plaintiffs and class members to advocate on
that issue. TRX1, at 185:24-186:14; see also TRX1, at 50:24-51:21 (Defendants “turned the
microphone off,” with LULAC president Margaret Moran “pushing the button”). 211:10-213:8
(microphone “muted” then taken away and controlled by Defendants or their personnel, making it
inaccessible to delegates who wished to address the assembly). By controlling the microphone,
Defendants ensured that only voices friendly to their political objectives would be heard in the
assembly room. TRX1, at 214:2-215:7.
Defendants again flouted their own 2013 LULAC National Convention Rules – which
provide that delegates and other attendees “must maintain proper decorum at all times,” note that
“whistles are not allowed,” and punish intentional disruption of election proceedings by
“expel[ing]” offenders from the assembly, Exhibit 14, rule 2010 – and the LULAC constitution,
which requires that “[g]ood order must be maintained if business is to be carried out. Courtesy
would demand that there should be no whispering or commotion while any speaker has the floor.”
Exhibit 15, LULAC bylaws art. VI, p. 80. For example, during the “stand-up” voting process
Defendants conducted, some stood on chairs, others beat drums and many attendees were “making
all kinds of noise.” TRX1, at 51:15-19; TRX2, at 106:6-8; see also TRX2, at 124:1-125:8
(delegations from Puerto Rico banged drums and yelled out names, and delegates from Texas were
“getting into fights”). Defendants failed to take control and stop the noise. TRX2, at 107:17-24,
133:4-17.
As custom at past LULAC national conventions, members not credentialed to vote have
nonetheless been allowed into the voting assembly to observe. TRX2, at 115:2-12. However, at
the 2013 National convention in Las Vegas, Defendants, clearly seeking to minimize the number of
witnesses to their sham election, barred observers from the voting assembly. TRX1, at 144:24-
10 On the other hand, the cited provision of the 2013 LULAC National Convention Rules
empowered the convention chair to “determine[]” what constitutes disruption of the assembly, allowing for inequitable application of the rule, and Defendants used the provision as a tool to stifle dissent. See Exhibit 14, rule 20.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 19 of 26
145:8; TRX2, at 115:2-19,180:7-19, 182:21-23 (No observation area in national voting assembly).
During the national assembly, Defendants intimidated attendees and thwarted participation
in the vote by Plaintiffs and class members, as well as others, by posting numerous security guards
around and near the assembly room. TRX1, at 46:21-47:10, 49:24-50:5, 92:11-19, 93:9-13. As with
Defendants’ registration system, there was a two-tier system for entry into the voting assembly,
where politically favored delegates went in unimpeded, while security guards ordered others to
show not only their delegate badges, but their identification. E.g. TRX2, at 100:2-101:3.
As mentioned, Defendants offered to pay and made partial payments to some class members
to reimburse them for use of rental vans to transport themselves from Arizona to Las Vegas.
Exhibits 11, 13; TRX1, at 54:4-16; 60:19-64:24, 99:12-102:3. Defendants attempted to paint the
Tucson councils’ use of rented vans to travel to Las Vegas to participate in the National convention
as a family vacation. TRX1, at 95:22-98:15. However, testimony shows such not to be the case, and
the vans were used strictly for transportation to and from the convention. TRX1, at 105:14-106:6.
Defendants’ counsel, when taking testimony, averred that no agreement existed between Ms.
Esquibel and Luis Vera, national general counsel to LULAC, by which he (on behalf of LULAC)
would reimburse Ms. Esquibel for the six vans that were rented to transport members of the Tucson
councils to Las Vegas for the National convention. E.g. TRX1, at 64:19-20, 76:2-9, 101:6-10.
However, that assertion is contradicted by uncontroverted testimony. E.g. TRX1, at 100:13-101:6.
Moreover, Defendants’ own national fiscal officer testified that Mr. Vera is authorized by
LULAC to pay for delegates to go to a national convention. TRX2, at 172:7-18.
Damages
Defendants accepted registration and council chartering fees from plaintiffs and class
members, but they never refunded the $18,084 paid for those fees. TRX2, at 23:20-40:23; TRX2, at
159:19-162:6 Defendants implied that the money was to be held pending the instant litigation.
TRX2, at 163:2-3. Plaintiffs are aware of no provision in LULAC’s governing documents that
allows Defendants to keep money of members they refused to register and charter during a legal
case or when the status of councils is “on hold” for nearly eight months after the convention the
participation in which was the purpose the councils and members paid their dues. TRX2, at 164:3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 20 of 26
6. On the other hand, Defendants made clear their opinion that no one is allowed under LULAC’s
constitution to sue over election outcomes. E.g. TRX2, at 120:15-121:9, 122:11-123:18. Plaintiffs
and class members paid at minimum $2,960 (148 members at $20/member) to register at the 2013
National convention. TRX2, at 174:5-18.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants are liable under the following causes of action
as asserted in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint:
Violation of A.R.S. § 10-3721
A.R.S. section 10-3721 provides, as relevant here, “Unless the articles of incorporation or
bylaws provide otherwise, each member is entitled to one vote on each matter voted on by
members.” Moreover, LULAC’s constitution makes clear that members have a right to vote on
matters of interest to and for the welfare of their Council or the League. LULAC Const., art. 4, §
1b.(2)-(4). LULAC’s Bylaws further provide that voting “at all conventions shall be by show of
hands, roll call or secret ballot.” LULAC Bylaws, art. II, § 8a; accord, Exhibit B to Ford Aff.,
LULAC Constitution, art. VIII, § 5d.
The evidence summarized above shows that Defendants failed to comply with LULAC’s
governing documents and Arizona statute. First, Defendants ultimately have not demonstrated that
Miguel Zazueta was not a member in good standing at the times relevant to the instant case, taking
into account their customary extension of time with which members may pay dues, plus the grace
period enunciated in the bylaws. The theory that Miguel Zazueta was not a member in good
standing when he sponsored the Arizona councils to which Plaintiffs and class members belonged
is the linchpin to Defendants’ claim that those councils were not validly chartered, a claim which
underlay their thwarting Plaintiffs and class members from voting at both the Arizona and National
conventions.
Because the theory is invalid, Defendants lack any basis for having thwarted those members
from voting. Even if their theory were considered to be valid, the obvious lack of clarity to the
outcome of the vote to reinstate the Arizona councils at the National convention – because of the
stand-up voting method and Defendants’ “estimation” instead of actual counting of votes –
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 21 of 26
undermines the validity of that vote. In summary, Defendants wrongfully deprived Plaintiffs of
their right to vote.
Conversion
Conversion is “an act of wrongful control or domination over personal property in denial of
or inconsistent with the rights of another.” Huskie v Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co., 139 Ariz.
396, 402, 678 P.2d 977, 983 (App. 1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 223(A), 237
(1965)). Here, defendants accepted funds from Plaintiffs for chartering and membership fees, plus
fees to register at the Arizona and National conventions. Even though they thwarted Plaintiffs from
participating in any voting, Defendants did not return any of the funds. Defendants converted
Plaintiffs’ money.
Common Law Fraud
The nine elements of common law fraud in Arizona are “(1) a representation; (2) its falsity;
(3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent
that it should be acted upon by and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer’s
ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on the truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; and (9) his
consequent and proximate injury.” Peery v. Hansen, 120 Ariz. 266, 269, 585 P.2d 574, 577 (Ariz.
App. 1978).
Clearly, Defendants conducted fraudulent elections at both the Arizona and National
conventions. In Arizona, Defendants did not allow registration at the posted times and had no
provision for credentialing delegates at all during at least part of the posted registration hours. They
took Plaintiffs’ and class members’ chartering, membership and registration money and misled
them into believing they had been credentialed to vote, only to reveal at the last possible moment
that there was no intention that Plaintiffs or class members would participate in the Arizona
elections. Defendants’ acts were deliberate, having been plotted out the night before and at other
times prior to the convention, according to evidence that they had been looking to invalidate Miguel
Zazueta’s membership as far back as April 2013, so as to (1) eliminate competition for Defendant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 22 of 26
Mireles’ bid for state directorship and (2) prevent Plaintiffs and class members from voting and
affecting the outcomes of LULAC’s elections.
In Las Vegas, Defendants led Plaintiffs to believe that, notwithstanding Manuel Escobar’s
legal opinion invalidating their councils’ charters issued more than a week earlier, they would be
able to participate in the election. Defendants did so by having Plaintiffs wait in hours-long lines
and navigate Defendants’ appeals process in hopes of obtaining voting credentials. Defendants
ultimately shut the door on Plaintiffs and class members, preventing them from voting. Defendants
conducted a vote to overturn their legal opinion invalidating the Arizona charters, but their stand-
up-with-hands-raised vote-tallying system not only violated LULAC’s governing documents, but
because votes were “estimated” rather than actually counted, it was impossible to determine with
any accuracy the outcome of the votes.
The above-cited facts also demonstrate that Defendants are liable for promissory estoppel,
engaged in ultra vires acts and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Defendants Deprived Plaintiffs, Class Members and All Delegates of Due Process
In taking jurisdiction in this case, the Court sought to determine (1) whether LULAC has a
reasonable and orderly process for admission of its members and for continuation of membership;
(2) whether LULAC has established a due process procedure for review of denial of membership,
and (3) whether LULAC acted reasonably and not in an arbitrary manner in applying its
membership rules and due process procedures. Ruling, CV2013-008731, Oct. 14, 2013.
LULAC’s governing documents provide that membership maybe attained, as relevant here,
by application to a local council or “recommendation” of a member in good standing. Exhibit 15,
LULAC Const., art. IV, p. 4. A council may be organized under sponsorship of an active council or
officer of a district, state or national board of directors. Id., art VI, § 8b. There was testimony that
new councils must be registered for 30 days before their members can vote in a convention. E.g.
TRX2, at 148:21-23.
LULAC offers extensions to members in a given year within which to pay dues before a
membership lapses, and in 2013 the extension lasted as late as April 15, 2013. E.g. TRX2, at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 23 of 26
155:13-19. Nonetheless, an active member who is in arrears on his dues for 3 months is suspended
from membership but can reinstate membership simply by paying his dues – thus, LULAC
governing documents provide a grace period within which a member may pay his dues before
losing good standing. See LULAC bylaws, art. III, §3(a), p. 71.
The evidence adduced in this case makes clear that Defendants applied the above-cited
rules arbitrarily to suit their agenda, which was to cling to power no matter the will of the
entirety of the membership. Defendants accepted money for membership and to register charters for
Plaintiffs’ and class members’ Arizona councils. Then, once they became aware that Miguel
Zazueta could pose a threat to Defendant Mireles’ bid for power as Arizona director and the
councils Mr. Zazueta sponsored could pose a threat to their grip on power by voting for opposing
candidates in the national elections, Defendants reneged on their acceptance of those memberships
and ruled those councils to be improperly chartered by way of Ms. Morales’/Mr. Escobar’s legal
opinion.
Testimony shows that Defendants colluded and came up with a plan that was as simple as it
was fraudulent: Rule Miguel Zazueta, a member since at least 2000, to be not in good standing and
snuff out both his threat to Defendant Mireles’ bid for power and the potential threat the Arizona
councils he sponsored pose to the electoral status quo. The evidence presented herein leaves
unclear whether Miguel Zazueta was a member in bad standing, as defendants claim, based
on LULAC’s customary dues-paying extensions and the grace period provided in the bylaws.
Defendants got around that uncertainty by (1) holding Mr. Zazueta’s check so they could
claim he had not paid his dues, and (2) issuing a legal opinion invalidating the Arizona charters so
that it would take a 2/3 vote, instead of simple majority, to seat the Arizona councils to vote at the
national voting assembly. Also, upon issuing their legal opinion, Defendants placed the Arizona
charters “on hold” within 30 days of the National convention, making it impossible for those
councils to become reinstated in time for their members to vote in Las Vegas without engaging in
the uphill battle of winning a 2/3 majority vote to overturn the legal opinion.
Then, to make absolutely certain they remain in power, Defendants conducted rigged,
fraudulent elections. In Arizona, they misled many new delegates into believing they were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 24 of 26
credentialed, when in fact Defendants made no mechanism available by which delegates could
become credentialed during the entire time registration was open. They kept Plaintiffs and class
members sequestered in a separate room while they conducted nominations, then they refused to
seat Plaintiffs and class members to vote in the Arizona election, and they suddenly conducting a
vote by acclamation so as to end the election before Plaintiffs and class members could make their
case that they should have been allowed to vote.
In Las Vegas Defendants carried out a two-tier registration system, allowing their political
allies to register and become credentialed quickly and conveniently, while forcing the disfavored
members to wait for hours over the course of two days in lengthy lines, only to deny credentials to
the Arizona councils and refuse to give audience to their appeal. Defendants then conducted “stand-
up” voting not contemplated in their governing documents and out of compliance with their own
convention rules. Defendants admitted that they never counted the votes, never conducted a roll
call, never carried out secret ballots. Instead, Defendants openly admit that they “estimated” the
vote tallies, and the individuals whose job it was to count votes instead were relegated to affirming
the opinion or estimate of the election judge. The processes to which Defendants adhered in
conducting the national assembly votes are nowhere contemplated in any governing document or
rule or at law. In short, Defendants conducted sham elections designed and intended to ensure
that they remain in power.
Even though Plaintiff Soto was credentialed to vote and did vote at LULAC’s National
convention, Defendants’ actions described herein deprived him of due process by (1) subjecting
him to a rigged, or at least irregular, vote due to the use of “stand-up” voting and vote “estimating,”
(2) preventing him from presenting Plaintiffs’ and class members’ case to the credentialing
committee, and (3) depriving him and all delegates and members of a fair and clean election in
which all paid-up members – including Plaintiffs and class members – would have been allowed to
vote E.g. TRX1, at 180:14-183:2, 185:5-10, 203:8-204:2, 204:13-207:24.
Even those from among Plaintiffs and class members who were registered and credentialed
were harmed, because they were cheated out of an honest election and subjected to a sham election
in which Defendants made every effort, while ignoring LULAC constitutional and bylaw provisions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 25 of 26
and the concept of due process, to keep a substantial group of people from voting for their preferred
candidate. Indeed, considering that Mr. Garcia ultimately withdrew his candidacy as a result of
Defendants’ shenanigans, Defendants robbed all LULAC members who supported Mr. Garcia
or were considering voting for him of the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Indeed, Defendants’ acts subject them to impeachment. Exhibit 15, LULAC Const. art. IV, p. 3.
Defendants asked several witnesses whether there is a provision in LULAC’s constitution
allowing a member to “go to court” when the member disagrees with how LUCAC conducts a vote.
E.g. TRX2, at 120:15-121:9, 122:11-123:18. In so contending, defendants in effect are renewing
their failed challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction over the within matter; the court, on considering
arguments made by both parties, accepted jurisdiction, and thus the premise that a LULAC member
my sue if she or he believes the group’s leaders ran a rigged or corrupt election, as happened here.
See Order, CV2013-008731, Oct. 14, 2013. In any case, nothing in LULAC’s governing documents
explicitly forbids a member from going the court to challenge an election. TRX, at 129:22-25.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant all relief
requested in their First Amended Complaint. FAC, ¶¶ 136-143, p. 17.
DATED this 28th day of March, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS FORD Attorney for plaintiffs __/s Chris Ford__________ By: Chris Ford, Esq. ORIGINAL of the foregoing E-FILED this 28th day of March, 2014 with: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Superior Court
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ CLOSING ARGUMENT
Page 26 of 26
201 West Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85003 FOR Hon. Judge Michael Herrod COPY of the foregoing E-MAILED this this 28th day of March, 2014 to: Anthony Guajardo Counsel for defendants Fax: 602-957-0801 __/s Chris Ford__________ By: Chris Ford