[GPSCC-chat] Hearing Wednesday, Oct, 24, 9:30 AM re. $ 1/4 million penalty against Prop 14 opponents, San Francisco Superior Court

[Spencer Graves]

Hello, All:


       Might you or anyone you know be able to attend a court hearing in 
San Francisco next Wednesday, Oct. 24, 9:30 AM?  This is a hearing on a 
"Motion for Reconsideration" of a $243,000 judgment against half a dozen 
politically active but middle class citizens in favor of attorneys for 
Charles Munger, right wing billionaire sponsor of numerous legal attacks 
on unions and democracy, including Prop 14 (2010) and now Prop 32.  For 
more on this case, see the Wikipedia article on "Prop 14 (2010)" 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)#Court_Challenge_and_Controversial_Ruling 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%282010%29#Court_Challenge_and_Controversial_Ruling>] 
or the email below.  (This email is from Jeff Mackler, a socialist. He 
was joined in this suit, and will share this judgment with, five others, 
including a Libertarian, a Democrat, a labor organizer, and a professor 
of political science.)


       Many cases are decided in court hearings with no observers from 
the public other than direct parties to the suit.  It is fairly well 
established that the presence of observers in a court can impact the 
quality of justice, especially in "David v Goliath"-type procedures 
pitting common citizens against plutocrats.  Without mentioning details, 
I'm fairly confident that my presence in courtrooms as an observer has 
made a material contribution to the quality of justice available to 
specific members of the 99%. Anacharsis, a legal sage of ancient Athens, 
said, "Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies but cannot 
hold the big ones." (Wikipedia, "Anacharsis")


       Thanks for your support of the 99%.


       Spencer


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Mumia-alerts] Court Date Change: $243, 000 penalty imposed on 
Jeff Mackler
Date: 	Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:53:32 -0700
From: 	mumia-alerts at mailman.lmi.net
Reply-To: 	mumia-alerts at mailman.lmi.net
To: 	mumia-alerts at mailman.lmi.net



Urgent request!
Note: Our court date has been changed to
Wednesday, October 24, 9:30 PM.
>
> Dear Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal,
>
Please join me in court this Wednesday, Oct. 24 at 9:00 am. San 
Francisco Superior Court, 400 McAllister at Polk, Room 302. The question 
before the court will be: Should attorney fees in the amount of $243,000 
be imposed on me and five other plaintiffs as punishment for challenging 
in California courts the new anti-democratic election law?

We seek to fill the courtroom to make clear that supporters of basic 
civil and democratic rights are keenly concerned with the outcome of the 
proceeding.

As Director of the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, I have spent a 
good part of the past 18 years working for Mumia's freedom and in 
solidarity with all political prisoners. In 2005 as a write-in and 
socialist candidate for the U.S. Senate in California, I spoke out for 
Mumia in ten states.

Two years ago, the Prop 14 or "Top Two" new election law banned write-in 
campaigns and otherwise severely restricted ballot access rights for all 
third parties, I and five other plaintiffs sought relief by filing a law 
suit to challenge this ballot rights atrocity. We lost the suit but were 
shocked even more when a Superior Court judge imposed $243,000 in 
attorney fees against us, an unprecedented move. Such fees, under 
California and federal law can only be imposed if a suit has been found 
to be against the public interest or frivolous. Fighting for the right 
to fully participate in the electoral process is certainly not either!

This is a SLAPP suit if there ever was one – a chill against all those 
who would seek to redress legitimate claims against the state.
>
> The Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party have also justly 
> challenged Prop 14 - "Top Two" as well and could be subjected to the 
> same or worse penalties.
>
> AGAIN Join Us! Wednesday, October 24, San Francisco, 400 McAllister at 
> Polk. (The hearing formally begins at 9:30 am but passing through the 
> security apparatus will take some time.)
>
> In solidarity, Jeff Mackler 510-268-9429 Director, Mobilization to 
> Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
>
The following article has all the details.
>
> *$243,00 in Attorney Fees Levied Against *
>
> *Jeff Mackler*
>
> ***By Christopher Reynolds*
>
> In late July 2012 San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. 
> Karnow imposed $243,279.50 in punitive attorney fees against Socialist 
> Action National Secretary Jeff Mackler and five other plaintiffs, who, 
> two years earlier, filed a law against the State of California 
> challenging important provisions of Proposition 14, the new and 
> infamous “Top Two” election law. The product of a bipartisan vote in 
> the California State Legislature, “Top Two” was in significant part 
> aimed at banning minority parties and candidates from fully 
> participating in the electoral process.
>
> Top Two bans write-in campaigns outright and forces candidates who are 
> not “ballot qualified” and who run in a now mandated “open primary” to 
> identify themselves as “no party preference” despite the fact that 
> they are members of political parties.
>
> Mackler, who ran an effective 2006 Socialist Action write-in campaign 
> for the U.S. Senate, joined the lawsuit to defend these elementary 
> democratic rights and to avert the forced designation of “no party 
> preference” in anticipated future electoral efforts when he is well 
> known as a national leader of Socialist Action. 
>                                                                                                                                               The 
> five other plaintiffs in the suit were similarly members of a number 
> of political parties that ran candidates in California.
>
> Other opponents of  “Top Two,” like the ballot-certified Peace and 
> Freedom Party, have challenged the initiative on the grounds that its 
> passage all but eliminates the right to run in general elections, as 
> Peace and Freedom has done since the 1960s. Since only the top two 
> candidates in the mandated primary election can run in the general 
> election, even if the top two are members of the same party, as is 
> today the case in some eight California election districts, minor 
> parties are for all practical purposes banned.
>
> Proposition 14/”Top Two” was backed by multi-millionaire “liberal” 
> Republican Charles Munger Jr., whose interest in the initiative, 
> according to /Ballot Access News/editor Richard Winger, is to 
> eliminate fringe or ultra conservative parties or candidates from the 
> ballot who might siphon off votes from “mainstream” California 
> Republicans like former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Munger, who 
> is also chair of the Santa Clara County Republican Central Committee, 
> is the son of Warren Buffett's business partner in Berkshire Hathaway, 
> Charlie Munger Sr.
>
> When the six plaintiffs, including Mackler and Winger, filed suit 
> against the State of California to challenge important aspects of the 
> law the presiding judge in the case allowed several “third party 
> intervenors,” who supported and helped finance Top Two, to join the 
> state in defending it in court. The intervenors successfully argued, 
> according to Winger, that “the California Secretary of State would not 
> defend top-two vigorously enough.”
>
> The Republican law firm Nielsen Merksamer was hired for this purpose. 
> The firm failed to state at the time that it intended to file for 
> attorney fees. Its “defense” of Top Two,” as it turns out, included 
> the intention to collect massive and punitive legal fees, the amount 
> to be determined by the firm itself – with the assistance of a 
> friendly judge one might presume.
>
> Some two years of litigation followed, during which time California 
> courts rejected the challenge filed by the six plaintiffs. The matter 
> was dropped, but not until Judge Karnow, breaking with all legal 
> precedents, awarded Nielsen Merksamer's well heeled clients 
> $243,279.50 in attorney fees against Mackler and the other plaintiffs.
>
> California law bans such awards unless a lawsuit has harmed the 
> “public interest.” Similarly, federal law, which in this case trumps 
> state law, also prohibits the awarding of attorney fees unless a 
> lawsuit is “frivolous.” But neither Nielsen Merksamer nor Judge Karnow 
> alleged that the original lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs met either 
> of these criteria. Several observers saw Karnow’s decision as closer 
> to a political act of Republican Party patronage than one in accord 
> with a established principle: encouraging citizens to use the courts 
> to redress legitimate grievances, in this instance the fundamental 
> democratic right to participate in the electoral process.
>
> The six plaintiffs immediately challenged the imposition of the 
> punitive attorney fee award by filing a Motion for Reconsideration, in 
> which they are asking the very court that rendered the decision to 
> change its mind.
>
> Within a matter of weeks, a broad range of civil and democratic rights 
> organizations filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs, which showed 
> that the legal fees imposed on Mackler and the other five plaintiffs 
> violated state and federal law in a number of ways. A total of five 
> amicus briefs were submitted to the court on the plaintiff’s behalf -- 
> an unprecedented number for /any /state trial court proceeding.
>
> A joint brief was submitted by the National Lawyers Guild and the 
> Center for Constitutional Rights by a top Los Angeles law firm 
> (Hadsell & Stormer). The internationally prominent law firm of Orrick, 
> Herrington and Sutcliffe submitted a brief from FairVote, a national 
> voter rights advocacy group. The law firm of Jina Nam & Associates 
> submitted a joint brief by Ralph Nader and the Center for Competitive 
> Democracy and another by author, political reformer and rank choice 
> voting advocate Steven Hill. Finally, the law firm of Walter Riley, a 
> prominent Oakland civil rights attorney, submitted a brief on behalf 
> of the Alexander Meiklejohn Institute.
>
> In a stunningly arrogant manner, Nielsen Merksamer demanded what 
> amounted to an illegal “emergency” (ex parte) hearing before Judge 
> Karnow -- essentially insisting that he dismiss the plaintiff’s Motion 
> for Reconsideration outright.
>
> Gautam Dutta, the plaintiff’s attorney, appeared the very next day 
> before a packed courtroom of 50-plus plaintiff supporters and demanded 
> that Judge Karnow recuse himself from the proceeding and that the 
> court reject the Nielsen “emergency” demand to dismiss.
>
> Karnow, who had the option to challenge the demand that he recuse 
> himself, declined to do so. Nielsen’s motion to dismiss was rejected 
> and a new court date of October 22, instead of October 3, was set to 
> hear the plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. Such a motion is rarely 
> granted in California courts. In this case, however, the action 
> imposing the draconian and unprecedented attorney fee stands in such 
> blatant violation of state and federal law that the punitive “SLAPP 
> suit” might well be dismissed and the matter ended on October 22.
>
> Karnow’s decision to recuse himself could be an indication that he has 
> no further interest in pursuing this matter in what began as a David 
> and Goliath battle between the huge and moneyed Nielsen law firm and a 
> single attorney representing six dedicated plaintiffs seeking justice.
>
> With the unprecedented amicus briefs filed by other major law firms on 
> behalf of nationally-recognized civil and democratic organizations, 
> the plaintiffs are justified in expecting a victory on October 22. But 
> in these troubled times when basic democratic rights and civil 
> liberties, including the right to participate in the electoral 
> process, are under attack across the country, nothing can be taken for 
> granted.
>
> Should this repressive and illegal fine be affirmed, the plaintiff’s 
> will have no alternative but to appeal to the California courts and 
> then, if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court -- a sobering prospect. 
> Equally worrisome, the financial clock is ticking and the original 
> punishing imposition of  $243,279.50 can only be expected to mount 
> with each appeal.
>
> Needless to say, the chilling effect of this case could be 
> considerable. Legally, the result not only undermines public policy, 
> but violates outright the protections afforded to public 
> interest-interest plaintiffs under both federal and state law.
>
>
> Unless it is reversed, this unprecedented, unjust ruling could have 
> sweeping consequences over a far broader range of issues and litigants 
> than the underlying dispute (which addresses the merits of the Top Two 
> Primary's enabling legislation).
>
>  Supporters of Jeff Mackler and the other plaintiffs plan to attend 
> the San Francisco Superior Court hearing at 9:30 am on October 22 at 
> 400 McAllister Street at Polk. (Please come 30 minutes early, as you 
> have to clear security). All supporters of democratic rights are urged 
> to join them.
>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20121020/c3aecf74/attachment.html>