The pending intra-party litigation by several members of the Shelby County DemocratIc Party seeking to invalidate the election of Michael Harris
JB
Michael Harris
as chairman of the SCDP has been supplemented with an abundance of new documents for the state Democratic executive committee to consider — all this on the eve of the first planned meeting, Thursday night of this week, of the newly elected SCDP executive committee.
As it happened, the local committee, amid an oft-turbulent discussion, took no action Thursday night but agreed, on a decision by Harris himself, to hear out a petition by SCDP executive committee member Sanjeev Memula to hold a new election. Memula’s petition asks for the hearing within 20 days, in accordance with local party bylaws.
Before the state party issued its response remanding the issue back to the SCDP, members seeking Harris’ ouster had submitted a series of documents:
The first grievance to the state committee, filed on April 10, focused on possible discrepancies in the rules of election practiced by the SCDP executive and grass roots committees on April 6, when Harris, a lawyer who has been suspended from his practice for a five-year period, was elected by one vote over “None of the above.”
Subsequent supplements deal with what the litigants believe is the unsuitability of Harris for the position of chairman, given a lengthy and still uncorrected record of professional infractions and misdeeds by Harris. In one supplement, immediately below, the litigants cite these issues in a general way; they specifically seek a public hearing for their evidence, Harris’ disqualification, nullification of the election results, Harris’ disqualification, and ultimately a new election.
This supplement, like all the others gathered here, speaks for itself:
[pdf-6]
The second supplement, immediately below, repeats the requests made in the first supplement and cites facts relating to Harris’ frequent efforts to claim bankruptcy protection, claims that the United States Bankruptcy Court has now expressly prohibited him from renewing:
[pdf-5]
In support of this second supplement, the litigants cite the specific efforts made by Harris in his quests for bankruptcy protection, listed below in a timeline:
[pdf-3]
Next is the order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court revoking Harris’ privileges even to file for further bankruptcy protection:
[pdf-2] The next supplement is an itemized record of actions taken by the Board of Professional Responsibility apropos Harris’ suspension:
[pdf-4]
And the final, and most lengthy supplement, is an itemized chronology of the aforementioned infractions charged to Harris during his now terminated practice of law:
[pdf-1]
