On August 1, 2012, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that I and five fellow co-plaintiffs must pay $247,279 in attorneys fees to the supporters of the California top-two system. Judge Karnow’s term is up and he is running for re-election at the June 5, 2018 primary. His opponent is Maria Evangelista, a San Francisco Public Defender.
The Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco’s leading gay newspaper, has this letter to the editor in its April 4 print and electronic editions, written by me, describing how Judge Karnow behaved in 2012. Scroll down to see my letter; the link has two entirely separate letters and mine is underneath.
After Judge Karnow ruled, we six voter-plaintiffs appealed to the State Court of Appeals. The law firm which opposed us offered to drop the amount to $100,000 if we dropped our appeal. We did so, and one of the other six plaintiffs (who does not wish to be named) very generously paid the $100,000.
This so-called “judge” is just an ideologue with ZERO regard for the law.
The RW letter had in part —
The state courts not only upheld them; they also said that we six people who had filed the lawsuit had to pay attorneys’ fees to the law firm representing Charles T. Munger Jr., one of the wealthiest men in California.
—
Any cites for opinions by the *state courts* ???
Are not ALL losers supposed to pay the winners in ALL cases — to reduce ALL no merit cases ???
Obvious example — If some folks now attack an effort to REPEAL the top 2 stuff now in force.
Major difference between pre-effective date and post-effective date cases
— even for facial attacks on stuff ???
RE- the NO write-in point–
again – see 14 Amdt, Sec. 2.
Brought up in the original case or any appeals ???
— or just more attorney malpractice / incompetence ???
Demo rep should get a law degree so he can become the losinist ballot access lawyer in the land.
Good letter, Richard. Let us all hope that Judge Karnow loses – to whomever runs against him.
BVB–
the list of the losinist ballot access lawyers is now too long to report
— esp since Williams v Rhodes 1968 which did NOT mention B v B 1954.
Is BVB on the list ???
IE same delusional moron lawyers having the same losing arguments and expecting winning results = INSANE lawyers.
Since that is what happens too often with a govt issued lawyer license — then NO thanks —
see the MORON HACKS in SCOTUS — prime examples of the Peter Principle —
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp
Under the law prior to Top 2, it was practically impossible to run as an “independent” candidate in California. If someone had started voting in 1964, it was not until the final partisan election that he would have to take off his shoes to be able to count the number of “independent” candidates for US Congress in more than 1000 races.
One of your co-plaintiffs claimed he wanted to be the nominee of the Reform Party. During the time the Reform Party was qualified, the nominee of the Reform Party would have been able to have “Reform” next to his name on the ballot, and one would have believed from the briefs of your attorney, Gautam Dutta, that is what was being sought. Instead, Dutta argued that the nominee of the Reform party really wanted “Independent” next to his name.
Dutta continued to make the same argument in the Chamness case, citing ‘Libertarian Party v Eu’. But David Bergland was not arguing to have “Independent” next to his name. He was arguing to have “Libertarian” next to his name. It was exquisite when the Appeals Court judge told Dutta that she had read the opinion in ‘Libertarian Party v Eu’ and then added carefully.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Dutta was colluding with the unionized employees of the SOS office to sabotage Top 2.
HOW BYZANTINE LUNATIC HAVE THE ELECTION LAWS IN ALL STATES BEEN BEFORE AND SINCE 4 JULY 1776 ???
LONG TIME — NO BALLOTS — THEN
HAVING BALLOTS
GETTING ON BALLOTS
STUFF ON BALLOTS – NAMES, PARTY/NONPARTY LABELS, ADDRESS, JOBS, ETC.
VOTES ON BALLOTS
COUNTS OF VOTES ON BALLOTS
RECOUNTS OF VOTES ON BALLOTS
DECLARATION OF RESULTS
TAKING OFFICE
—
ENDLESS MACHINATIONS BY THE RULING CLASS HACKS ??? DUH.
WHERE IS THAT MODEL ELECTION LAW — THAT EVEN THE MORON SCOTUS HACKS CAN UNDERSTAND ???
AND OF COURSE —
NONSTOP COURT CASES ABOUT THE ABOVE 8 MAIN POINTS.
—
MAJOR INSANITY — DUE TO SUCH RULING CLASS HACKS
— AND THEIR MORON PUBLIC LAW SKOOOOLS
— PRODUCING LOTS AND LOTS OF MORON BALLOT ACCESS LAWYERS.
The United Coalition is designed for unity required to achieve 33.33% (plus one vote) under California’s top two and our team has been using the mathematical unity strategy of pure proportional representation (PPR) for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
In 2012 our team won the Libertarian Party’s (LP) only State primary (MO) which fell before their national convention with 52.7%.
But the party bosses aren’t interested in such achievements by using team psychology.
Despite the LP’s national chair blocking all hyperlinks from their national web site to our team of Libertarian POTUS candidates and the LP’s bias and unfair treatment, we attracted majority support.
Our team brings unity. But pluralists respond to that with bullying, censorship and their approval of powergrabbing, for self-centered conceited egomaniacs, under plurality voting.
The mathematics of PPR are dry and everyone wants to improve, so as more people somehow learn that unity is stronger than division, and that the wins in elections will occur despite the pluralist’s trying to snuff out our momentum, then maybe similar such wins by attaining 33.33% (plus one vote) will become more commonplace under top two in 2018.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Perhaps the U.C. can work on the brains of politics media folks about the PR math for CA legislators – CA USA Reps, CA Senate, CA Assembly, SF Bd Sup, LA City Council, etc. ???