<div dir="ltr"><div><div><br><br></div>I think it was Shannon who was concerned about ballot compliance, not Norm, Barry and Charles - they are concerned, as I understand, that the judge would have too much leeway without specifically defined enforcement. Barry suggested the following (in part):<br>
<br><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><b>15.
Our ordinance should have criminal provisions requiring the maximum
incarceration penalty and (not or) the maximum monetary penalty.<span> </span>The specific maximum penalties would have to be researched.<span> </span>My recollection is that the maximum for each violation is either $1K or $10K, and either 6 or 12 months in County jail.<br>
<br></b></span></span></span></div><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><b>-Caitlin<br>
</b></span></span></span>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Caitlin Alexander <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:caitlin29@gmail.com" target="_blank">caitlin29@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br><br>Good Morning,<br></div><div><br>I think, as Barry, Norm and Charles have suggested, that its important to have
a robust and specifically defined enforcement (they are saying that its required
for ballot compliance, as I understand). I see its importance also as
deterrence and prevention and as a strong statement of our sovereign
power. <br><br>We may be able to get our signature deadline extended, I understand, to possibly mid-July - if so, this would allow plenty of time to gather signatures (and get more organized also, bank account, promotional material, etc.) if county counsel takes the full 15 days again. He may take less time since he is now familiar with it and we can describe specifically where we are making changes.<br>
</div><div><br>My votes are YES to changing 4(a) by being specific as to:<br><b><br></b><span style="letter-spacing:0px"><b>"describing the kind of violation (misdemeanor)
and define each violation - which means potentially hundreds of
violations/day instead of "each day" being a violation. And it specifies
the punishment, so the judge has no discretion in the matter.</b></span>"<br><br></div><div>We need to be sure and specify that its the board members who would personally face jail time and/or large fines since, of course, a corporation IS NOT A PERSON. :)<br>
</div><div><br></div>and NO to changing 4(b), I agree with Ben Price here - we are creating the law as sovereigns:<div><div><img src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif"></div>
</div><span style="letter-spacing:0px">"The other issue is sec.4 (b). The
Business and Prof. code 17200, specifically repeals the right of
citizens to take action. Ben felt that even tho it is against the "law" <u><b>
we should claim this right anyway</b></u>. Barry thinks this might cause us
problems and make the ordinance vulnerable." (emphasis added)<br><br></span></div><span style="letter-spacing:0px">Best,<br><br>Caitlin<br></span><div><span style="letter-spacing:0px"><br><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:52 PM, karinajoy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:karinacotler@gmail.com" target="_blank">karinacotler@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-size:15px">Sisters and Brothers,</span><div style="font-size:15px"><br></div><div style="font-size:15px">A small but crucially significant problem regarding our Ordinance has arisen. It can be solved if we act now. It will cause some delay, but it is better we fix the problem now than ignore it and regret it later.</div>
<div style="font-size:15px"><br></div><div style="font-size:15px">It has to do with the ENFORCEMENT of the Ordinance. In other words, we need to give our Ordinance the proper teeth with which a judge MUST (not just MAY) enforce the Ordinance and thus dissuade those who would break the law.</div>
<div style="font-size:15px"><br></div><div style="font-size:15px">Barry Vogel pointed this problem out before, but then Norman de Vall raised the concern again. And Charles Wood responded with <span style="font-size:medium">“I don't think that simple use of the word "offense" makes it unenforceable, it just </span><span style="font-size:medium"><b>gives the judge too much latitude</b> to set the fine at whatever level he or she pleases.<b> It could be $1/day. </b></span><span style="font-size:14px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"><font style="font-size:15px" size="3">The jury decides the facts (guilty or not-guilty), </font></span>Judges interpret the law (amount for the fine).</span><span style="font-size:medium"><b>"</b></span><span style="font-size:medium"> They all agree, we</span> need to be more specific and strong in the enforcement clause. </div>
<br><div style="font-size:15px">So this is Barry's suggestion, as best I recall : </div><div style="font-size:17px">Sec. 4(a). </div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0px;font:normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial;font-size:15px">
<font style="font-size:17px" size="3"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Any corporation, government or natural person that violates any prohibition of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> most serious misdemeanor offense </span><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"> and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to </span></font><span style="font-size:17px">go to prison for one year and shall </span><span style="font-size:17px">pay a fine of $10,000 for each violation. Each time the pump is turned on, and each stroke of the pump down and up shall be a separate violation, and violation of each section of this Ordinance shall count as a separate violation. Courts shall grant no probation.</span></p>
<div style="font-size:16px"><br></div><div style="font-size:16px">Is there any strong opposition to this change in sec.4(a)? The lawyers at CELDF (or you) may fiddle with the language or the fine, but we need agreement by tomorrow, so we can re-submit asap.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On a second issue:</div><div>Sec. 4 (b) shall we strike out "or any resident of the County<b><i> " and later "or the resident..." ?????</i></b></div><div><b><i>Bus and Prof Code 17200 recently took away the citizen's right to take enforcement action. Ben felt we should claim this right anyway, since it's just another slow erosion of our rights. But Barry thinks we shouldn't risk the ordinance over this. So, should we leave it in or take it out?</i></b></div>
<div><b><i><br></i></b></div><div style="font-size:16px">There will be a cost. We'll have to pay the $200 fee again (which is refunded when we qualify for the ballot). But we'll forfeit the first $200. And there will be some delay. But since I doubt it will change the title or summary, it could be a fast turnaround. </div>
<div style="font-size:16px"><br></div><div style="font-size:16px">Let's do this right. A little additional cost, a little delay. The hurry isn't as great as the need to get it right and have a strong ordinance.</div>
<div style="font-size:16px"><br></div><div style="font-size:16px">So shall we make the change to 4a? and keep or delete citizen enforcement in 4b?</div><div style="font-size:15px"><br></div><div style="font-size:15px">Karina</div>
<div style="font-size:15px"><br></div><div style="font-size:15px"><br></div></div><br></div></div><div class="">_______________________________________________<br>
crn mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:crn@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">crn@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>