More of the same from City Hall. This measure violates the law in exactly the same way as the 2018 Prop A. Except this time, we caught it early and filed a Writ of Mandate to remove it from the ballot.
The Superior Court of San Francisco ignored and violated CA Election Code 13314 (a 3) that clearly states if an elector files a Writ of Mandate to remove an illegal item from the ballot, "The action or appeal shall have priority over all other civil matters. Our Writ was filed August 27, 2019. The Court did not act in accordance with the law and seemed to be in collusion with counsel for the Defendants to delay the process and harm this action. The hearing is now scheduled for October 11. See here. The defendants are seeking another demurrer from the court. See here. When will the lawlessness of City Hall end?
Here is our reply and request to disqualify the judge.
The judge issued a preliminary ruling before the hearing. We objected to ruling and attended the hearing. As expected, the judge ruled against us on all counts. You can read it HERE.
During this process we learned that judges across the state (not everywhere but most big counties) are receiving payments they aren't reporting on their Statement of Economic Interests Form 700. This was discovered by a Southern California lawyer named Richard Fine who discovered a small reference to it in the Government Code. It explains a lot of what we've observed. A judge who is the picture of impartiality in normal legal hearings that don't involve government, is deferring and has no challenges when the government is involved. You can learn more about this HERE.
During the hearing, I asked the judge if he was receiving any supplemental benefits from any entity aside from the Legislature. He replied "I ask the questions in this court and not you." I then asked if that was a Yes or No. He said "It is what it is."
Subsequently, we filed a California Public Records request. And sure enough, this judge is receiving thousands of dollars from San Francisco but not reporting them on his Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests. Follow this link and search on "Schulman".
Another thing we noticed, was that when the Board of Supervisors sent the language for Prop A to the Department of Elections, it included language they always include for bond measures stating:
"The City’s current debt management policy is to maintain the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new general obligation bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors."
You can read the instructions HERE. But then we filed our petition for a Writ of Mandate where we called this out as a BIG LIE and provided proof in the exhibits. See Writ Here. Exhibits A - E Here and F - M Here. Taxes since 2006 have consistently gone up. When the measure was published, that language was removed. See HERE.
Happy to accept small steps in the right direction.
Demurrer sustained. We lost. But we intend to file a Post Election Challenge
No comments:
Post a Comment