<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello, All: <br>
<br>
<br>
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)" [<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%282010%29#Court_Challenge_and_Controversial_Ruling">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)#Court_Challenge_and_Controversial_Ruling</a>]
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.) <br>
<br>
<br>
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") <br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for your support of the 99%. <br>
<br>
<br>
Spencer <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>[Mumia-alerts] Court Date Change: $243, 000 penalty
imposed on Jeff Mackler</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:53:32 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net">mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net">mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net">mumia-alerts@mailman.lmi.net</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#F91715"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="7"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 29px;">Urgent
request! </span></font></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#F91715"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="7"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 29px;">Note:
Our court date has been changed to </span></font></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#F91715"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="7"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 29px;">Wednesday,
October 24, 9:30 PM.</span></font></font></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font class="Apple-style-span"
face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000">Dear Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal,</font></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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!</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT; "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT; ">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.</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; "><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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. </font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; "><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">AGAIN Join
Us! Wednesday</font></span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT; "><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000">, 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.) </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; "></span></font><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT; "><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000">In solidarity, Jeff Mackler
510-268-9429 </font></span><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Director,
Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The following article has all the details.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"
align="center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><b><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">$243,00 in
Attorney Fees Levied Against <o:p></o:p></font></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"
align="center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><b><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Jeff
Mackler<o:p></o:p></font></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><b><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> </font></b></span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: 19px; "><b><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">By
Christopher Reynolds</font></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Proposition
14/”Top Two” was backed by multi-millionaire “liberal”
Republican Charles Munger Jr., whose interest in the
initiative, according to </font><i><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Ballot
Access News</font></i></span><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> 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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.”<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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 </font><i><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000">any </font></i></span><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">state trial
court proceeding.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<div><span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> </font></span><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">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).<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> 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.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:.25in;text-indent:48.0pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"><font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000"> <o:p></o:p></font></div>
<!--EndFragment--> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>