Appeal of November 2018 Ruling on Seawall Bond

We filed an Appeal to ask the Appellate Court to overturn the ruling of Judge Schulman. The City filed a motion in Opposition. We filed an Opposition Statement. The court decided in our favor and accepted the case.

Here is our opening brief.  By order of the court, copies were submitted to the California Supreme Court. Here is the Defendant's reply. Pitiful.

Got tied up with the lawsuit challenging the November 2019 Prop. A and missed the January 13th deadline. Submitted an application to file a late reply brief. Called the court first to get instructions about how to proceed. Was told on the phone to bring everything down and the court would likely accept. But when I arrived, a clerk told me they couldn't receive my paperwork until the court accepted the late-filing application. And that the City needed to be served the late application on the City. After returning to post the proof of service, I had one more question. Another clerk answered but said the other clerk was wrong. That the court would stamp all the paperwork as received and I COULD leave it all there....but it wouldn't be formally accepted until the extension was granted. And that I had to serve the stamped reply brief on the City. I had to go back and serve them again. Be very careful about who you accept information from. ONLY accept information from the head clerk of the Division of the Court you are filing in. The others don't know anything but are liberal with advice and opinions that may not be true.

Here is our Reply brief to the Defendants' reply. I waived the need for oral arguments. If the City does also, the appeal will be decided based on paperwork alone. Copies were also submitted to the CA Supreme Court.

The Court ruled against our case. Here is their logic. And Here is our response to that logic. The decision in this cases was delivered "Not for Publication". However the City wanted the court to release it for publication. There are other lawsuits similar to mine filed around California. The lawyers representing the local governments wanted to use this decision as evidence that the courts are rejecting these claims. The Court allowed the publication for this purpose. It initially seemed a setback. But then it was learned that the Supreme Court hears very few cases from the Appeals Court unless they are published. 

As a last ditch effort, this Request to Reconsider their decision was filed. It was rejected. This is going to the CA Supreme Court.  

2019 Proposition A - SF "Affordable" Housing Bonds - Post Election Challenge

Here is our opening Statement about the illegality of Proposition A in the November 2019 election.

Happily, presiding Judge Garret Wong mostly followed the law and set a "Hearing date" within the time limits of California election law. That is a first for us. Previously, all "hearings" were scheduled according to traditional Civil Law. Election Law trials are supposed to happen fast. Unfortunately, it isn't supposed to be a "hearing" as stated by Judge Wong. It's supposed to be a Trial. And, Judge Wong assigned the hearing to the courts of Judge Schulman, the same judge ruling against me and other taxpayer initiatives previously.

As it appears Judge Schulman has a bias toward City Hall and against us and San Francisco taxpayers, I decided to file a Peremptory Challenge to his involvement in this case. The law says a single challenge can be filed with no questions asked to remove a Judge.

In a most unusual move, Judge Schulman then ruled in his own favor filing an Order to Strike my Peremptory Challenge. An Objection to his Order was immediately filed. Anyone really interested in getting into the details of the corruption of the court really needs to entirely read this. Here we reveal we have the information from City Hall that these judges are receiving payments from the City. These payments are not reported on their Form 700 statements of financial conflicts of interest. How can judges be ruling on matters involving City Hall while at the same time taking money from them?

An on-line complaint was filed with the CA Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) about Judge Schulman. They replied with this rejection of the complaint. When pressed informing them that these monies paid to judges were not "salary", they sent this reply. Apparently judges are exempt from FPPC requirements. How about that? A judge is allowed to rule on cases involving the government when receiving money from them and they don't have to report it.

On January 16th the Court responded with a preliminary judgement completely ignoring our Objection to the judge's order and responding with specious arguments proven false in our objection. Looks we are going to have to appeal this one too.  Here is the final judgment. Criminal.

It appears Judge Wong wasn't really into following the law from the beginning. We have 60 days to file another appeal.