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.