Prop. R: Is It A Three Term Limit, or Twelve Year Limit: There Is A Difference, Y'all...
I was looking at one of those slick, shiny, duplicitous and intentionally deceiving Proposition R mailers sent to voters (and posted on trees and City utility poles), and noticed it said, "Limits Councilmembers to 12 years."
Excuse me, is it a 12 year limit, or three term limit. Cause the flyer said it limits it to 12 years, but Zuma Dogg can serve 14 years under Prop. R.
First, I can run for Padilla's Council seat (which will be a two year term, that does not count toward the other three, four year terms). So after my first two years filling in for Padilla, I can run and be elected for three more, four year terms. And I just typed that into a calculator, and that equals 14 years, y'all.
And there are sitting Councilmembers who can also serve 14 years in office, even though the flyers said, 12. And hello, Jackie Goldberg and others. I guess three terms means those who termed out after two terms, may run again for City Council.
So, does City Council need to amend the Proposition, already? Or was the 12 year limit part on the flyers just more of the duplicitous and intentionally deceiving B.S. we are forced to continue to take at the shovel of City Council.
CAN THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OR A SUPERIOR JUDGE PLEASE REPLY WITH A COMMENT. THIS NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED UP.
Excuse me, is it a 12 year limit, or three term limit. Cause the flyer said it limits it to 12 years, but Zuma Dogg can serve 14 years under Prop. R.
First, I can run for Padilla's Council seat (which will be a two year term, that does not count toward the other three, four year terms). So after my first two years filling in for Padilla, I can run and be elected for three more, four year terms. And I just typed that into a calculator, and that equals 14 years, y'all.
And there are sitting Councilmembers who can also serve 14 years in office, even though the flyers said, 12. And hello, Jackie Goldberg and others. I guess three terms means those who termed out after two terms, may run again for City Council.
So, does City Council need to amend the Proposition, already? Or was the 12 year limit part on the flyers just more of the duplicitous and intentionally deceiving B.S. we are forced to continue to take at the shovel of City Council.
CAN THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OR A SUPERIOR JUDGE PLEASE REPLY WITH A COMMENT. THIS NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED UP.
Labels: proposition r
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 11/08/2006 06:25:00 PM
13 Comments:
You are correct, sir. 14 years is the new max.
Wendy Greuel ran to finish Joel Wachs term. She has been elected for one full term. That was twice. And now she has two more shots. Even with four elections, she will not serve a full 14 years if she is re-elected two more times.
Is David Hernandez going to pick up the lawsuit so easily dicarded by Jacobs and Lyons?
David Hernandez should definitely sue the hell out of the clowncil for the corrupt way they placed Prop R on the ballot.
A federal judge just blocked an Propositon that passed 70% that would have made the rules harder to sexual predators.
Its worth a shot David.
The original LA Superior Court Case No. BS104862 Donner v Conny McCormack, County of Los Angeles, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk; Frank Martinez, City of Los Angeles City Clerk was ruled in no uncertain terms in favor of Mr. Donner.
Judge Robert H. O’Brien ruled that Proposition did violate the State Constitution.
As many of you know, I have stepped forward to continue the efforts to protect Judge O’Briens ruling and the State Constitution. Mr. Donner and the US Term Limits group have made the decision to discontinue their legal challenge.
The Appellate Court hearing is set for November 28, 2006. All documents have already been filed in support of Judge O’Briens ruling.
I have already spoken to the attorney representing Mr. Donner and requested a friend of the court brief be filed allowing me into the action. I will have an answer by close of business tomorrow.
I have already met with my attorney who has conducted the necessary research needed to act no matter what decision is made by the current law firm.
This is a case which can and must be defended. We are in a very advantages position and can bring about true reform when we prevail.
Please remember the City Council and all special interests groups connected with this Measure already had their day in court prior to the election. They lost!
It is not I who is bringing this to the Appellate Court, it is them. I am only following through with the decision of Judge O'Brien.
So no matter how they try and spin this, it is them.
David Hernandez
Dave -
Filing an amicus brief is not enough to keep a lawsuit alive if the plaintiff dismisses the case.
Rather, your lawyer needs to file a motion to intervene, so you will become a party to the lawsuit. Simply stated, you will become the plaintiff (in the superior court) and the respondent (in the appellate court).
That needs to happen BEFORE the plaintiff/respondent dismisses the case.
In layman's terms, it takes two to tango. If one side of a lawsuit surrenders, it's all over.
P.S. You might try arranging for an assignment of the plaintiff's rights -- the plaintiff's cause of action / chose of action -- so that you would file a motion to substitute in as the plaintiff. This is doubtless jargon to you, but should mean something to your attorney.
P.P.S. CYA time: I am NOT your lawyer, so do not rely on my comments here. Rather, discuss the lawsuit confidentially with YOUR lawyer. I'm just shooting from the hip here, which is no substitute for actual legal research.
David Hernandez 224,000 people are wishing you the best of luck and are supporting YOU. Thank you for continuing to exhaust all avenues to try and block this sneaky, deceiving ballot measure.
Taking over the lawsuit? Way to go David Hernandez!
David Hernandez, you will win our trust and respect if you successfully take over the lawsuit.
We support you all the way!
Thanks for the advice, Walter. I am sure David is getting the best advice possible. There have to be a few lawyers out there who are as pissed off as most of us are.
David do you need donations to cover the expenses? If so, please let us know where to send them.
Good luck to us all!
David, my wallet is open and ready to send funds if necessary.
Next on the agenda, start a campaign to lower clownncil pay. We can win that one!
Thank You Walter. To all of you who appreciate my effort, thank you for the encouragement and confidence.
The legal aspects will be decided very soon and your correct Walter, not being a lawyer the verbiage is “jargon” to me but appreciated and vital.
I will not discuss too much more about the case until the ink is dry and the documents are filed.
I did have the privilege of being on the Warren Olney Radio Show yesterday. Also on the show was Bill Boyarsky, a former Los Angeles Times political writer, a political correspondent covering national, state and local politics for nine years and a city editor for three years.
Mr. Boyarsky is the Vice Chair of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission.
I made it very clear, the pending legal action was brought by the city. The legal action and ruling which I am defending was decided prior to the election. They lost!
It is not I and it was not Mr. Donner who went to the Appellate Court, it was the city. Why? Because they refused to accept the ruling of Judge O’Brien and have a total disregard for the State Constitution. Their agenda is more important then the rule of law.
Mr. Boyarsky stood his ground and stated the campaign for Prop R was misleading and the so called ethics reform weakened the current ethics restrictions.
On the Pro side of the argument was a representative from the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and Termed out City Councilman Ed Reyes.
Both denied any wrong doing and defended the contributions of the major donors. Both spoke of the greater good....
So for now, thanks again and we will see you on the 28th of November in the Appellate Court.
P.S.
Yes, funding for the legal defense is needed. But I do not want to use this venue to ask for funds. You can contact me direct at drhassoc@earthlink.net.
David Hernandez
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home