[GPSCC-chat] Occupy SJ Plans For Sept 17th?

Sun Sep 16 19:31:16 PDT 2012

Does Occupy SJ have anything planned for Sept 17th?  I looked on all of their available web pages and I didn't see anything except the Sept 15th foreclosure summit.  I suppose I will wander down to City Hall anyway sometime tomorrow to hold up my signs about derivatives and free education.

John Thielking

--- On Sun, 9/16/12, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com> wrote:

From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Hearing re. a court challenge in SF on Monday morning, September 17
To: "Gerry Gras" <gerrygras at earthlink.net>
Cc: "GPSCC" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Date: Sunday, September 16, 2012, 11:23 AM

Hi, Gerry, et al.:

      I forwarded Gerry's email to the Occupy San José list.  Dave Kadlecek 
replied that at most two of the plaintiffs hit with this quarter-million 
dollar judgment were Greens and gave links to more info.  I modified the 
Wikipedia article on that, and I'm taking a proposal on it to the Occupy 
San José General assembly at noon today.

      Below please see Dave's comments and my reply.

      Spencer

##############################

Hi, Dave, et al.:

       Thanks for the corrections AND the links to further information. 
  Using the links, I updated the Wikipedia article on "California 
Proposition 14 (2010)" to summarize the information in those two links. 
  If you have time to review that article and see other changes that you 
feel should be made, please let me know. (Note, however, that Wikipedia 
requires "a neutral point of view" and solid sources for what is stated 
there.)

       Next:  Revise my proposal for today's General Assembly, print, 
and take them there by noon.

       Best Wishes,
       Spencer

On 9/16/2012 9:09 AM, Dave Kadlecek wrote:
> Spencer and all,
>
> I also urge those of you who can make it to the court hearing in San
> Francisco tomorrow to go, but I have a correction to Spencer's email and
> a bit of elaboration.
>
> The lawsuit (Field v. Bowen) wasn't by "6 Green Party activists", but by
> six people, at least four of whom are not Greens (Richard Winger, the
> publisher of Ballot Access News, is a Libertarian; Steve Chessin, the
> chair of Californians for Electoral Reform, is a Democrat; and Rodney
> Martin (Reform Party) and Jeff Mackler (Socialist Action) are with
> non-ballot qualified parties).
>
> As you may remember, Prop 14 brought about the "top two" primary system,
> first implemented state-wide this year, which is why there will be only
> two candidates on the ballot (and no write-in space) in every race for
> U.S. Congress (both House and Senate) and the state legislature (both
> State Senate and Assembly) this November. If you don't like Dianne
> Feinstein and don't want to vote for her Republican opponent, your only
> choice this November will be to abstain; you can't vote for a third
> party candidate, because none will be on the ballot, and you can't even
> write in "Mickey Mouse" because there won't be a write-in space for U.S.
> Senate.
>
> The lawsuit directly challenged two specific aspects of SB 6, the bill
> that implemented Prop 14 (which was a constitutional amendment): one
> that said candidates from non-ballot qualified parties couldn't have
> their party listed on the ballot, and another that said write-in votes
> could not be counted in general elections. The judge ruled against the
> plaintiffs in lower court, and the legislature changed the relevant law
> (basically to put into the state Elections Code the interpretations of
> ambiguous language the Secretary of State had made) while appeals were
> in process.
>
> There were two sets of lawyers on the other side in the case, one from
> the Attorney General's office, representing the Secretary of State (the
> defendant), and the other from the Nielsen Merksamer law firm
> representing Abel Maldonado (who got it on the ballot by extorting the
> Democrats in the legislature for his vote on the 2009 budget deal) and
> the other sponsors of Prop 14. For those who aren't otherwise aware, the
> Nielsen Merksamer law firm is based in San Rafael, with a major part of
> their practice representing landlords challenging local rent control
> laws and other tenant protections; they used to represent the state
> Republican Party when that party's apparatus was controlled primarily by
> business interests, but when the social conservative types (i.e., the
> ones who really are vehemently anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-immigrant,
> as opposed to just using those issues to win votes) took over the party
> organization, they switched law firms. It's the Nielsen Merksamer
> lawyers who were awarded a quarter million dollars. They didn't trust
> the state's lawyers to properly defend the ballot measure they backed,
> but instead of going after the state for attorney's fees, they went
> after the plaintiffs who had sued the state.
>
> For more information, see
> "http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/09/15/some-supporters-of-top-two-open-primary-take-punitive-action-to-crush-opponents-with-crippling-legal-fees/"
>
> and "http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38148".
>
> /Dave Kadlecek
>
>
> Spencer Graves wrote:
>
>> Hello, All:
>>
>>       The Green party is asking for support against an outrageous
>> judgment in court in San Francisco at Larkin and McAllister next
>> Monday at 10:45 AM for an 11 AM hearing.  The 6 Green Party activists
>> who challenged Prop 14 (the top two primary system) have been ordered
>> to pay $243,500 to the attorneys representing the top two system.
>> Prop 14 effectively eliminates third parties from the general
>> election, except in rare cases where a third party candidate actually
>> gets in the top two.  Other states that have this have seen a decline
>> in membership of third parties.
>>
>>       This punitive settlement may not stop here, because the same
>> judge who assessed this punitive settlement will also hear the
>> request request for reconsideration, even though normal court
>> procedures require a different judge.  Moreover, this hearing was
>> moved up from October to tomorrow, Monday, September 17.  The
>> attorney challenging this decision is concerned that he may be levied
>> a similar punitive judgment for daring to challenge the $243,500
>> settlement.  For more details, see below.
>>
>>       I believe this is an attack on democracy.  If you agree and can
>> make it to court in San Francisco next Monday, I encourage you to do so.
>>
>>       Thanks,
>>       Spencer
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fwd: [gpca-forum] Need Bay Area Greens
>> help in SF on Monday morning, September 17
>> Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:09:55 -0700
>> From:     Gerry Gras <gerrygras at earthlink.net>
>> To:     GPSCC <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am planning on going to court Monday.
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>>
>> Gerry Gras wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is pretty serious.  I hope Richard
>>> Winger (Ballot Access News) and the other 5 get
>>> plenty of help.
>>>
>>> For those who don't remember, Prop 14 is the one
>>> that gave us the top two primary system.
>>>
>>> Gerry
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [gpca-forum] Need Bay Area Greens help in SF on Monday
>>> morning,
>>> September 17
>>> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:39:49 -0700
>>> From: Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
>>> To: GPCA Forum <gpca-forum at cagreens.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
>>> Date: September 14, 2012 8:19:06 PM PDT
>>> To: mfeinstein at feinstein.org
>>> Subject: I badly hope to obtain help from everyone on this list
>>> Reply-To: richardwinger at yahoo.com
>>>
>>> Dear Mike, if you could pass this on to any California Green Party
>>> activists list, I would sure appreciate it.  Obviously it would be
>>> most useful sent to bay area Greens.
>>>
>>> Richard Winger
>>> 415-922-9779
>>> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 9/14/12, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
>>> Subject: I badly hope to obtain help from everyone on this list
>>> To: lpsf-activists at yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Friday, September 14, 2012, 8:13 PM
>>>
>>> Some of you know that on August 1, Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that the
>>> six of us who challenged Prop. 14 in court, must pay $243,500 to the
>>> attorneys who intervened in the case for Abel Maldonado and other
>>> supporters of the top-two system.  We asked for reconsideration.
>>>
>>> The attorney for the intervenors has arranged to have the same judge
>>> hear the request for reconsideration, even though according to the
>>> normal court procedures, we were supposed to have a different judge.
>>> And he got the hearing moved up from October to Monday, September 17,
>>> at 11 a.m.  Our attorney, Gautam Dutta, a young attorney in Fremont,
>>> California, is afraid that this same judge is going to impose
>>> sanctions on him for even daring to ask for reconsideration. The
>>> attorney for the other side is very cocky and we feel the only
>>> recourse is to try to have as many friends in court as possible, so
>>> the judge sees that we have support.  Please, if you can possibly come
>>> to court at Larkin and McAllister at 10:45 am Monday morning, I would
>>> really appreciate it.  We can meet outside the courthouse. Please let
>>> me know if you can come.  Thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Richard Winger
>>> 415-922-9779
>>> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
>

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120916/798df009/attachment.html>