The San Francisco Chronicle has this story about California SB 696, the bill to force the American Independent Party to change its name by October 29, 2019, or it will be removed from the ballot and all its members will be forcibly converted to independent voters. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for the link. As the story points out, Governor Gavin Newsom hasn’t acted yet on the bill.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
MUST sue for $$$ damages to get past next election(s)
— since courts are de facto paralyzed in election law cases – due to SCOTUS party HACKS.
Okay Demo Rep- just how does the AIP go about suing for monetary damages?
@DR,
Who is going to pay the damages?
Umberg? Padilla? Newsom? Paul Mitchell?
For STUPID folks (of which way too many on this list ) —
Defendants are sued — not ET in outer space, martians, etc. — esp State hacks who ENFORCE UN-con State election laws.
Advanced genius-MORONS –
See Fed Rules of Civil Procedure (since 1938) — COMPLAINT FORMS
— since the many BAN pdf Complaints (about 2-5 links per week) have NO effect on the brains of legal MORONS.
FOR- NON-MORONS–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents
ZILLION cases against State/local Hacks – for USA Const/law violations.
—
900 years plus Anglo-American LAW –
olde
Blackstone’s Commentaries [1760s — used to write early State Consts and many early laws) – Book 3
Civil injuries NOT having specific remedies have $$$$$ damages remedy – esp violations of life, liberty and property — Civil trial by jury connection.
State of mind = a FACT question for juries.
Intentional injury = punitive damages
Un-intentional injury = ordinary damages.
See the various MASS TORT cases – bad cars, drugs, etc. — aka ambulance chaser lawyer cases.
See esp 42 USC 1988 – esp for lawyers.
Demo Rep- in other words you have no idea! Just admit it. You are a FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@DR,
I gave you list of potential targets. Which would you advise suing?
Did the six unknown named agents pay anything in the Bivens case?
JR –
Sue whichever hacks in the chain of command actually enforce the un-con law – highest to lowest.
Part of the mess is that cases against exec officers are NOT indexed correctly — spread all over A-Z —
often based on type of injury — false arrest, bad warrants, etc. — tree-forest problem —
ie NOT having a general – Defendant – Govt Exec officers category.
Mess made much worse due to USA state of siege since 7 Dec 1941 and all the UN-declared WARS since 1950 Korean War [so-called *police action*].
Unknown of Bivens follow-up — often NOT reported since no new legal points involved —
like routine damage cases in local trial courts.
@DR,
I found this. Apparently the settlement was either for $500 or $1000.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/webster-bivens-story-an-update-after-a-half-century/
What about Ziglar v. Abassi?
The Bivens cases have generally been a federal law enforcement official going outside his duties, and the SCOTUS has been reluctant to extend it to new circumstances.
The governor enforces all laws. The AG defends state officials. Padilla enforces election laws. He is just doing what the legislature told him to. Paul Mitchell is a private citizen egging on the legislature.
You aren’t going to get a judgment in your favor, and won’t get attorneys fees paid.
Better to stick to getting the injunction, and order to simplify voter registration forms and to let independents be designated as such.
Ever hear of cops getting sued for damages for using excessive force ???
Is the LEGAL STUPIDITY level at an all time high ??? —
——
$$$ DAMAGES – NOT MOOT — trademark case — applies to ALL cases
—-
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS, INC. v. TEMPNOLOGY, LL, 587 US ___ (2019)
Slip op pp 6-7
———
II
Before reaching the merits, we pause to consider Tempnology’s claim that this case is moot. Under settled law, we may dismiss the case for that reason only if “it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever” to Mission assuming it prevails. Chafin v. Chafin, 568
U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). That demanding standard is not met here.
Mission has presented a claim for money damages —essentially lost profits— arising from its inability to use the Coolcore trademarks between the time Tempnology rejected the licensing agreement and its scheduled expiration date. See Reply Brief 22, and n. 8. Such claims, if at all plausible, ensure a live controversy. See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 8–9 (1978). For better or worse, nothing so shows a continuing stake in a dispute’s outcome as a demand for dollars and cents. See 13C C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3533.3, p. 2 (3d ed. 2008) (Wright & Miller) (“[A] case is not moot so long as a claim for monetary relief survives”). Ultimate recovery on that demand may be uncertain or even unlikely for any number of reasons, in this case as in others. But that is of no moment. If there is any chance of money changing hands, Mission’s suit remains live. See Chafin, 568 U. S., at 172.
Tempnology makes a flurry of arguments about why Mission is not entitled to damages, but none so clearly precludes recovery as to make this case moot. First, Tempnology contends that Mission suffered no injury because it “never used the trademark[s] during [the post-rejection] period.” Brief for Respondent 24; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. But that gets things backward. Mission’s non-use of the marks during that time is precisely what gives rise to its damages claim; had it employed the marks, it would not have lost any profits. So next, Tempnology argues that Mission’s non-use was its own “choice,” for
Cite as: 587 U. S. ____ (2019) 7
Opinion of the Court
which damages cannot lie. See id., at 26. But recall that the Bankruptcy Court held that Mission could not use the marks after rejection (and its decision remained in effect through the agreement’s expiration). See supra, at 4. And although (as Tempnology counters) the court issued “no injunction,” Brief for Respondent 26, that difference does not matter: Mission need not have flouted a crystal-clear ruling and courted yet more legal trouble to preserve its claim. Cf. 13B Wright & Miller §3533.2.2, at 852 (“[C]ompliance [with a judicial decision] does not moot [a case] if it remains possible to undo the effects of compliance,” as through compensation). So last, Tempnology claims that it bears no blame (and thus should not have to pay) for Mission’s injury because all it did was “ask[ ] the court to make a ruling.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 34–35. But whether Tempnology did anything to Mission amounting to a legal wrong is a prototypical merits question, which no court has addressed and which has no obvious answer. That means it is no reason to find this case moot.
And so too for Tempnology’s further argument that Mission will be unable to convert any judgment in its favor to hard cash. Here, Tempnology notes that the bankruptcy estate has recently distributed all of its assets, leaving nothing to satisfy Mission’s judgment. See Brief for Respondent 27. But courts often adjudicate disputes whose “practical impact” is unsure at best, as when “a defendant is insolvent.” Chafin, 568 U. S., at 175. And Mission notes that if it prevails, it can seek the unwinding of prior distributions to get its fair share of the estate. See Reply Brief 23. So although this suit “may not make [Mission] rich,” or even better off, it remains a live controversy— allowing us to proceed. Chafin, 568 U. S., at 176.
*****
MUST SUE FOR $$$ DAMAGES IN ALL CASES – ESP ELECTION LAW CASES – TO AVOID MOOTNESS STUFF – election cycle stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
ALL folks – read some CON LAW 000001 textbooks —
to reduce the many legal MORON comments on this list.
—
SUBVERSION of ANY part of the USA Const by ANY govt HACK, USA-State-Local, legis-exec-judic, AIN’T a trivial matter – in ANY case.
Obviously can lead to the TOTAL destruction of the USA Const and ALL State Consts —
put the USA into ABSOLUTE TYRANNY of 6,000 plus years ago.
LOTS of New Age wannabee TYRANTS quite intent on such destruction –
see the EVIL raving CONTROL FREAK statists in Devil City.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/
esp Book III
BC was THE Anglo-American legal work up to the USA Civil War – multi- 10s of Brit and USA editions / updates — spread the common law to many English colonies.
Became obsolete with more written laws about torts and crimes and civil and criminal procedure – esp the ONE form of civil action (replacing about 700 plus years of the olde forms).
There’s something wrong — terribly wrong — about the state, in an arbitrarily authoritarian manner typical of the duopoly’s desire for self-preservation and its increasingly paranoid fear of the word “independent,” forcing a political party to change its name, especially a party that has been around for more than fifty years. Third-party activists across the country should be outraged.
The late Bill Shearer must be rolling over in his grave.
I mean, think about it. How would Libertarians feel if the two major-parties decided one day that the word “liberty,” or a derivative of that word, could never be used by a political party?
That day, by the way, may eventually come — and probably sooner than later if the corrupt and incompetent duopoly ever feels threatened by it.
The duopoly is all about self-preservation and it’ll do anything to maintain its power — or more precisely, its control — over American politics.
If Gov. Newsom, a product of the duopoly, has even a shred of decency and fairness he should veto this ridiculous bill.
@DR,
Name a natural person in California you think would have to pay punitive damages???
Yesterday both Erika Contreras who is the Secretary of the California State Senate and E. Dotson Wilson who is the Chief Clerk of the California Assembly signed Senate Bill 696. Today the bill will be sent to the Office of the Governor. He has until October 13, 2019 to veto or sign the bill. If he does neither on circa October 13,
2019 the California Secretary of State will just chapter it
an the bill will become an effective law without the Goverrnor’s signature.
AB 681 (election day change of affiliation) was also sent to Newsom.
Proposed message from Newsom:
I am vetoing SB 696 because AB 681 eliminates the potential harm, and California will surely lose in court. I urge the General Assembly to permit independent voters to call themselves independents and pass legislation that will resolve the Soltysik liigation.
If only he would listen to you, Jim!
Jim Riley,
Bad idea on what to write the Governor. Soltysik litigation is not the issue here. The ROV in Imperial County has listed voters that wrote on the HAVA form the
political party affiliation of “Independent” and “Independiente” has determine their intentions was to have registered with the American Independent Party.
AIP questioned that determination with the SOS. The
SOS informed me personally in a one to one talk that the
ROV of Imperial County was acting correctly by counting them in the AIP total. That total count of those electors
was 37 persons, I do not know how the other 57 County
ROV’s treat this declaration issue, because the AIP has
not received a complete of this type of purpored voter fraud from any other AIP elector in any other county.
DGR – in CA the regime is a *mono* RED communist monarchy – gerrymander oligarchy.
JR-MS
Better to send a letter to Trump to have him declare the CASSOR regime to be in a state of rebellion against the US Const.
See Lincoln Proc Apr 1861.
At 10:00 am SB696 arrived at the California Governors Office almost a week after it was in engrossed and enrolled.
@MS,
The root cause of any confusion is California’s confusing terminology and affidavit of voter registration. Voters don’t comprehend the term “No Party Preference”. When they register to vote they may express a preference for a non-qualified party. A party could not become qualified otherwise.
But when such voter becomes a candidate, they are told that they don’t actually have a party preference. California might as well use the term “Double Mumble Jumble”.
If California permitted voters to describe themselves as independent, it would use a contemporary term that is accurate, instead of forcing use of “No Party Preference” or “Double Mumble Jumble”.
Settlement of the Soltysik lawsuit would permit candidates who do not describe themselves as “independent” to be recognized as preferring “Socialist Party USA” or “Constitution”, etc.
The Imperial County Registrar was an idiot. He can not determine intent. It is clear that nobody considers themselves to be “Double Mumble Jumble”, some may check “American Independent” others may write in “independent”. If they write Socialist Party USA or Constitution they clearly don’t mean “Double Mumble Jumble” or “No Party Preference” or “independent”.
So simply put an option of “independent” on the voter registration form. If a few who meant to check American Independent, they will still be permitted to vote in the American Independent presidential prefence primary. If they ever decide to run for office as an American Independent they can change their affiliation.
Jim Riley
The AIP received a complaint of voter fraud in Imperial County which I was sent to investigate. 37 electors in
Imperial County used the “Formulario National de inscripcion de Votantes” and at question # 7, viz., “selection de pintido politico” [choice of party] had entered “Independiente” or “Independent”.
The Imperial County ROV determined these electors
Intent as registering a party preference with the “American Independent Party”.
After confirming that 37 elector is Imperial County made
that statement as a choice of party which the Imperial County ROV believe they were requesting a party preference of being deemed to be with the “American Independent Party” after February 9, 2012, I conducted a one to one talk with the SOS about the practice of the
Imperial County ROV asseverating that “Independiente”
or “independent” was an intent to pick the “American Independent Party”.
The reply from the SOS was the Imperial County ROV was acting correctly that “Independent” and “Independiente” meant the American Independent Party.
I gave up on the issue after I had that talk with the Secretary of State.
The full name of the party formed on July 8, 1967 was the “American Independent Party of California”
See 1 Amdt right of association cases.
Blatant RED communist Donkey attempt to subvert freedom in CA.
How soon before ONLY *Democratic* is allowed on ballots in RED CASSOR ???
See olde nazi / USSR *ballots*.
@DR,
It will be retroactive to 1850. There has never been any party but the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has always been the only party.
Jim Riley
Every ROV in all 58 Counties in California “determines”
Intent of the voter when they write in the “OTHER____” space at question # 14 of the California Voter Registration Form. The form list currently six qualified political party, however the SOS informed the ROV’s on July 31, 2019 twice that the number of qualified political
parties were eight by CC/ROV’s. Those two CC/ROV’s
list two additional “qualified parties” with their VOTECAL
Codes, viz. “No Party Preference” with NPP and “Other”
with OTH.
Voters has passed the entry on the Spanish form of “Partido Democrata” and gone to the “Otro” line to write
in “Democrat”. Every ROV I talked with when the see
the word “Democrat” these voters are all placed in the
Democratic Party totals. Imperial County was the only
county that would place “Independiente” in the AI count.
On September 13, 2019 two additional political bodies noticed the SOS they formed, viz.,”NO PARTY PREFERENCE” and “DECLINE TO STATE”.
According to these filings with the SOS on September 13, 2019 the Temporary Chairperson for “NO PARTY PREFERENCE” Political Body is J. L. Garza and for “DECLINE TO STATE” Political Body the Temporary Chairperson is K. Broaders.
Both political body’s gave the 70 day notice under Elections Code section 5003 on September 16, 2019
by filing with the SOS.