The legal history, legal status & legal direction

Measure R
“Councilmember Term Limits of Three Terms;
City Lobbying, Campaign Finance and Ethics Laws”

The legal history, legal status & legal direction

Before I bring you up to date on the legal challenge to Prop R, I want to take a moment to bring everyone up to speed as to what has taken place from the beginning in the legal realm.

The initial legal challenge was filed August 28, 2006 in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case number BS104862 was titled Neil A Donner Petitioner vs. Conny McCormack, County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk; Frank Martinez, City of Los Angeles City Clerk, Respondents.

City of Los Angeles City Council and Does 51 through 100, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest.

This was a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate”. The “Relief” requested was the following;

1. For issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directly Respondents Conny McCormack and Frank Martinez to remove Proposition R from the November 7, 2006 consolidated ballot in the City of Los Angeles;

2. For and award of costs and attorneys’ fees and

3. For such other and further relief as this court deems proper.

On September 7, 2006 Judge Robert H. O’Brien issued his ruling and granted the “Peremptory Writ of Mandate” and the proposition was removed from the ballot. The judge found that the proposition was a violation of Article XI, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution in that it combines two subjects in one measure.

The City appealed and a hearing date is set in the Appellate court on Tuesday November 28, 2006. The Appellate court case number is B19351.

While waiting for the appeal the Appellate court placed it back on the ballot. They did not over rule Judge O’Brien’s decision or claim it was constitutional, they only put it back on the ballot to give the voters an opportunity to vote in the event the Appellate court over turns the lower courts decision. As it stands right now, Proposition R is unconstitutional.

Mr. Donner is represented by the law firm of Bell, McAndrews, Hiltachk & Davidian in Sacramento, California. The local attorney on record is Paul T. Gough of Sherman Oaks, California. The action was supported and funded by US Term Limits of New York. Paul Jacob was the lead man from the group on the Prop R action.

Another legal action dealt with the language of the Ballot Measure and the Ballot Statement. This was the action in which Mr. Jeffrey Jacobberger and Jason Lyon was involved. This concerned language and it was moot once the ballot was issue was resolved. This case is over.

Now you know the facts, parties involved and current status as of November 2, 2006.

What took place next is where this writer became involved and engaged.

Prior to the weekend before the election a press conference was called by the “Not PROP R” Committee and the US Term Limits group. I attended the press conference as it was announced there would be a major legal announcement. We met at the Los Angeles City Hall. As I listened I was stunned to hear Mr. Donnor, Mr. Jacobberger, US Term Limits and the Not Prop R were not going to pursue the legal action should the voters approve the measure on election day.

At that moment I was faced with a decision. Could I, knowing all that I did about the deceit, manipulation and dishonest conduct in connection with getting the measure on the ballot, just step back and allow all those involved to succeed, just because our legal team had decided to give up.

My course of action was clear. If I truly wanted to be a public servant then I had an obligation to the people to step forward. I made my intentions clear at that moment.

I then contacted Attorney Candice E. Jackson in San Marino, California and she agreed to meet and discus my options. I then went to the court house and obtained copies of all the lower court files. Attorney Jackson advise me to contact the Bell Firm and request to be substituted as the Petitioner as Mr. Donner was dropping out. After one and a half weeks waiting for a response form the Bell Firm I received the following news.

It appears a new challenge arose as a result of the “Relief” requested in the original Donner action, that being taking the proposition off the ballot. As it is after the election, it is too late to remove it!

The Bell firm has moved forward and filed a request to withdraw the action and will not fight the appeal. The judge will honor their request and that case will be over as well.

My attorney Candice E. Jackson is preparing the documents to be field. As the Bell firm has already filed their withdrawal we shall move forward quickly and will not wait until the Appellate court date on the 28th.

Our argument will be the same as was successful in removing it from the ballot by judge O’Brien but our “Relief” will be to set aside the vote and up hold the unconstitutional ruling.

I have just been contacted by an attorney from one of the top Law Firms, if not the top law firm in Los Angeles. I have been offered his help in seeing this matter brought to a positive conclusion.

So here we are. The fate of Prop R is our hands and we have the a clear mandate in which direction we must go.

My attorney estimates one hundred hours of legal work to see this through the lower courts. Which represents fifteen thousand dollars in fees and expenses. Our first expense was coping the records and the next will be the filing fee.

So here is your opportunity to help with the funding. Please make your check payable to David Hernandez and rush it the PO Box 3245, North Hollywood, California 91609. Please write “Prop R Legal Fund” on the check.

Or you can make it payable directly to Candice E. Jackson Attorney at Law and write “Prop R Legal Fund”. It too can be mailed C/O David Hernandez PO Box 3245 North Hollywood, CA 91609.

Remember this is not tax deductible but is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David Hernandez