Mountain Mail’s Response To The SEC

Editor’s Note: This is the Mountain Mail’s response to the SEC’s demand for publication of notice of suit. This is our response composed by our attorney Roscoe Woods.

Socorro Electric Cooperative
215 Manzanares Ave.
PO Box H
Socorro, NM 87801
Attn: Co-op Attorney, Dennis R. Francish & Members of the Board
Re: Pandora’s Box—The Socorro Electric Cooperative INC (SEC), vs C. West, including Member/Owners & the Mountain Mail Newspaper et al.

Greetings:
Be advised that this firm represents the Mountain Mail Newspaper (the “Mountain Mail”). Mr. Gary Jaramillo, General Manager and Owner of the Mountain Mail, forwarded a correspondence and “Notice of Suit” from the Co-op’s Attorney naming the Mountain Mail as a co-defendant.
Please take note that your correspondence demanding that the Mountain Mail publish the “Notice of Suit” for publication will not be accommodated. As a co-defendant, the Mountain Mail is a party to the suit, and therefore cannot achieve “service of process” amongst co-defendants. I’m not saying that publication precludes the constitutional requirement of due process of achieving notice of suit; but as a party to the action, Mountain Mail may not be able to provide service of process in this cause of action.
I mentioned the above not to discourage your efforts, but rather to encourage proper service upon Mountain Mail so that we may Answer accordingly and proceed with Counterclaims. The aforementioned is expressed with the following caveats: “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” Origin of said quote is uncertain but an appropriate remark by one of New Mexico’s savviest politicians, the late former Governor Bruce King; and, 2) certain discovery devices may be utilized to extract information from perhaps, Officers and Board Members. Such devices may include, but not limited to, depositions, subpoenas and production of documents.
That being said, be careful what you ask for, in that you may “open a whole box of Pandoras.” Another expression used by former Governor Bruce King.
No one will benefit from this lawsuit, except for the co-op’s attorney, and it will be at the expense of its members. This suit was perpetrated by the advice and guidance of its attorney. It appears this tactic may be a “churning” of legal fees.
Perhaps it may behoove the members to see what’s in the “box.” But, one thing is for certain, whatever spews from the “box,” our community will be at odds, and an attorney will be well paid at the expense of the Co-op members. I personally do not see an “upside” to this suit. This approach is not rational, and certainly does not benefit the Members of the SEC.
If not already sought, the issues of whether a private co-op can adopt the same regulations that apply to a public entities and whether members of the press may attend board meetings may be disposed of by an advisory opinion by the State’s Attorney General. This would certainly save on time, and the amount of money that will be spent on litigation and attorney fees.
Seeking an opinion from the AG’s Office may be moot because under NMSA 1978, § 53-11-50 (2010), shareholders possess right to inspect corporate books and records. And, as it pertains to rural electric co-ops, the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that members of rural electric co-op may be granted cooperative access to documents as it pertains to LEGAL billing records. See Schein v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Co-op., Inc. 122 N.M. 800, 807, 932 P.2d 490, 497 (1997) (holding that access to Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Co-op.’s legal billing statements was properly granted).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email.
Awaiting proper service,
Roscoe A. Woods & Associates, LLC

Mountain Mail’s Response To The SEC