Los Angeles Braces for a Storm

Los Angeles Braces for a Storm

The winds of change reach Los Angeles as the court date for Prop R approaches. With the presiding judge granting the motion to place the Prop R Legal challenge on the August calendar, the forces of Los Angeles have lined up to do battle. Attorney Steve J Reyes of the Law Firm Kaufman Downing LLP—representing both the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce—has requested the court date be set on August 26, 2008.

Having no objections, Attorney Eric Grant, representing David Hernandez and Ted Hayes has agreed. Prop R, which was placed on the November ballot by the Los Angeles City Council in 2006, extended the term limits of City Council members to an additional four years. This was done under the guise of “ethics reform” and as a result combined two issues on a single ballot measure violating the states “single issue” clause. The ballot measure campaign, heavily funded by major business interests, convinced voters registered in Los Angeles to vote for the measure and it passed.

David Hernandez presented the legal challenge and enlisted Mr. Hayes to participate. Hernandez residing in the San Fernando Valley and Hayes a resident of Downtown Los Angeles, represent a vast cross section of individuals living in the Los Angeles area. The matter will be heard in the 2nd District, Court of Appeal, Division 8, 300 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013, 213-830-7000.

In a year charged with political intrigue, the defeat of Prop R on “unconstitutional grounds”, will set the stage for a major political frenzy leading up to the March 2009 city elections. The immediate consequence will be six open city council seats with no incumbent eliminating the usual advantages enjoyed by incumbent office holders.

Those impacted by the legal challenge and decision to strike down Prop R will be: Council President Eric Garcetti Dist. 13, Janice Hahn Dist.15, Ed Reyes Dist. 1, Dennis Zine Dist, 3, Jan Perry Dist. 9, Richard Alarcon Dist. 7, and Jack Weiss Dist. 5. With the exception of Councilmember Weiss, who is running for City Attorney, all are seeking a third term.

In addition to the impact on current city council members, the defeat of Prop R will represent a major loss for the lobbyists and other special interest groups in Los Angeles. The measure was drafted by a law firm in San Francisco, which represents the Los Angeles Lobbyists and Public Affairs Association and was termed by its opponents as a measure “written by Lobbyists for Lobbyists.”

A victory on August 26, 2008 will represent the largest political accomplishment by activists and community groups since Prop 13. As the political muscle of Los Angeles amasses to protect a well-funded, well-entrenched and seemingly invincible machine, the Winds of Change will engulf every corridor of City Hall.

Respectfully,David Hernandezwww.termedout.com

http://www.kaufmandowning.com/client.phphttp://www.lachamber.com/http://www.eric-grant.com/http://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/election/propr2006_yes_contributions.pdf http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd13/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd15/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd1/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd3/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd7/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd5/http://ethics.lacity.org/efs/public_election.cfm?election_id=37#S147

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

What Have We Done Los Angeles?

What Have We Done Los Angeles?
By Donna Connolly

Not only did the November 7th election have Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in DC celebrating, it generated some celebrations closer to home.

The passage of Proposition R–the so-called Ethics Reform measure–gave our LA City Council members an additional four years in office by raising term limits from 2 four-year terms to 3 four-year terms (from 8 years to 12).

Despite attempts by opponents such as City Controller Laura Chick, City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo, community activist David Hernandez, et al and the great effort on the part of the Daily News–the measure passed with 59% of the votes. Any opposition was completely eclipsed by the flood of misleading mailers and ads paid for by the financial contributions of wealthy businesses and lobbyists who had the most to gain from the passage of this measure.

The funding for the “NO on Prop. R” campaign was sadly dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to deceive the voters into thinking this proposition was in their best interest. In light of the Abramoff scandal in Congress and a political climate rife with corruption, it was easy to convince voters that this proposition would protect them from corruption at home. But has it?

In the last week, the LA City Council members have given themselves a 15% increase in pay, and have awarded $150 million of bond money to a California investment bank with ties to lobbyists to build a new police headquarters. According to a recent article in the Daily News,
Council members concede that L.A. taxpayers might have gotten a better deal had other firms been able to compete for the bonds. But they claim they wanted to keep the contract local, and they insist that their decision had nothing to do with the fact that it benefits one of their lobbyist pals (article dated 11/12/06).
But all is not lost. There is still hope and that hope lies in the courts. According to the state constitution, a ballot initiative cannot have more than one unrelated issue. When two or more unrelated issues are included in one ballot proposition, the voters have to decide to accept both or to reject both. For this reason, a judge in October ruled that Proposition R was unconstitutional because it combined term limits and ethics reform in one initiative and ordered it off the November ballot. Unfortunately, an appellate judge overruled that order and it was put back on.

Community activist, David Hernandez has already begun preparations to file a new lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the proposition. Since a judge has already ruled it unconstitutional, victory is in our grasp.

But lawsuits are expensive, and this is a grassroots effort on the part of one lone crusader. In a recent article in the Daily News, David was christened the “San Fernando Valley gadfly”, and encouraged to keep up the fight. We should all give David our seal of approval and echo their endorsement; “We wish Hernandez well. The City Council's arrogance continues to grow, and he's now L.A.'s best hope for reining it in (Daily News article dated 11/12/06).”

YOUR “NO” VOTE COUNTS

YOUR “NO” VOTE COUNTS

If for no other reason, you must go to the polls to VOTE “NO” on Proposition R.

For every “NO” vote on Proposition R, a “YES” vote is cancelled out. Who’s vote do you want to cancel?

Here is a list of a few of the top contributors to the “YES” on Proposition R campaign and their funding to date. So much for “reducing the power and influence of lobbyists and special interest.”

LA Arena Land Company $75,000
Ron Burkle, Investor $50,000
Morongo Band of Mission Indians $25,000
AEG and Affiliates $25,000
Casden Properties $25,000
Home Depot $25,000
Airport Management Services $15,000
UFCW Local 770 $10,000
St Andrews, Santa Monica $10,000
O’Melveny & Myers $7,500


Proposition R needs only a simple majority of the vote to pass. That means 50% plus 1. Every “NO” vote subtracts from that simple majority–every non-vote adds to it.

Send your councilmember a message on Tuesday, November 7th:

Tell them that you do not appreciate their deceitful tactics and will not reward them with 4 more years. Send a message to the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters who were complicit in this deception.

They have subverted the democratic process by ignoring the recommendation of the City Attorney that the proposition is misleading and unconstitutional (violating the single issue law for ballot measures).

And they have silenced the independent voice of the Ethics Commission that was formed in 1993 by the voters to prevent this type of ethics violation by our elected officials.

Shame on you Los Angeles City Council! Shame on you League of Women Voters! Shame on you Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce!

North Hollywood Trees under attack by ruthless R virus

Breaking News,

North Hollywood Trees under attack by ruthless R virus.

Almost over night, a blight has erupted on many Trees in the San Fernando Valley. As motorists, bicyclist, joggers and folks just taking a stroll have observed, a deceitful virus has appeared on many trees in the North Hollywood area.

Awaiting a response from the Sierra Club and the local chapter of the Tree People, citizens are warned not to touch these illegally posted, non identified misrepresentations as they may cause the uninformed do- gooder to become infected with a citation from your local city enforcement agency. Yes, although posted illegally you can not attempt to ease the trees condition by removing the misleading wart.

Airborne contamination may have already spread the virus and evidence has already appeared on many other illegal posting sites such as telephone poles. Although only similar in appearance to the Trees, the virus has like wise attached itself to many wooden telephone poles. We will be interested in the diagnose from our friends at the phone company.

Reward Posted:

This writer has yet to see a legally posted sign. I am offering a $25.00 reward to the first person who sights and reports a legally posted sign to me.

A second reward of $50.00 will be given to the first person who can document which individual or individuals designed, printed, distributed and paid for the signs.

Contact,

David Hernandez
Community Advocate and general pain the neck to the "political hack" community.

P.S.

Please pass this Virus warning on to your e-mail groups.

Oh yes, Vote No on the R Virus

What’s In It For Them?

Prop R: What’s In It For Them?

Recently, the Los Angeles City council voted to place an initiative on the November ballot that will make changes to the current City Charter regarding ethics reform. This initiative (Proposition R) is known to the voters as the City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act.

Many voters who do not regularly read the opinion section of local newspapers, have only the word of respected organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce to help them make informative decisions on Election day.

These two organizations supporting this measure are responsible for bringing these changes to the city council earlier this year. Included in the changes is a term limit extension from 2 terms (8 years) to 3 terms (12 years) for city council members.

According to the City Attorney,
“Having reviewed the various proposals…we have concluded that the ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform proposals can simply be adopted and implemented in their entirety through an ordinance passed by the City Council.”

Simply stated, the issue of ethics reform does not need to go before the voters. The only reason Prop. R is on the November ballot is because of the term limit increase.

So this is our question: Why do the League of Women Voters and LA Area Chamber of Commerce care about city council member terms being increased from 8 years to12 years? What is in it for them?

The mailers that were sent out to over 100,000 likely voters mislead the public in two ways: 1) by claiming that Prop. R will “limit” council members to “three terms (12 years total)” without informing voters that the current charter limits council members to two terms (8 years total) at present. And 2) that it will prevent city officials from swindling city government out of millions of dollars (referring to a case brought before the city council by City Controller, Laura Chick against the LADWP). These mailers suggest that this initiative if passed will prevent these incidents from occurring again and imply that the City Controller is a supporter of this proposition. In a letter printed in the Daily News, October 24, 2006, Laura Chick writes,

“For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.”

“In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R.”
Sincerely,
LAURA N. CHICK
City Controller

When Liza White, President of the League of Women Voters, was asked about the mailers, she defended them saying “they aren’t deceptive.” If she really believes these mailers are not misleading, then how can this woman be trusted? She is obviously confused about what the word ‘deceptive’ means or she is trying to save face. Or she has another agenda.

Nevertheless, the most important thing the voters need to know when they go to the polls has not been made clear by the LA City Council, the League of Women Voters, or the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and that is: The changes to the city charter regarding ethics reform, can be made without voter approval.

If this council and these two organizations really care about ethics reform then this reform needs to begin closer to home. They need to be more transparent and truthful about their motives and political agenda.

Donna Connolly
David Hernandez
Citizens for Rational Reform

For more information, please go to www.TERMEDOUT.com.

I adamantly oppose Proposition R-LAURA N. CHICK

October 23, 2006

Mr. John Shallman
YES on Proposition R


Dear John:

It has come to my attention that you are using my name, and the credibility of the Office of the City Controller, in the campaign for the passage of Proposition R.

The mailers imply that I believe that Proposition R would have prevented the public relations over-billing scandals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition R would have had no preventive effect on that matter. I remind you that the City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.

In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R, using my name in mailers to voters in support of this measure is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving.

Please cease and desist immediately from using my name, or the Office of the City Contr oller, in conjunction with the Proposition R campaign.

Sincerely,

LAURA N. CHICK

City Controller


STATEMENT BY CITY CONTROLLER LAURA CHICK ON PROPOSITION R

"For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms."

"In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R."