[CRNMC] IMPORTANT! change sec.4 (a) of Ordinance?

Thu Apr 24 15:16:47 PDT 2014

Not so.

Misdemeanor wobblers are punishable by up to one year in a county jail and
a maximum $1,000 fine (unless otherwise specified).  Examples of these
offenses include

   - Penal Code 417 PC California's brandishing a weapon
law<http://www.shouselaw.com/brandishing-weapon-pc417.html>(punishable
by up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine),
   - Penal Code 368 PC California's elder abuse
law<http://www.shouselaw.com/elder_abuse_defense.html>(punishable by
up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $6,000 fine),
   and
   - Assault with a deadly weapon (punishable by up to one year in a county
   jail and a maximum $10,000 fine).7

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:56 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles said he thought the maximum fine for a misdemeanor was $1000.
> Since there could be hundreds of violations/day, I think we should reduce
> the fine from $10,000 (which makes me laugh every time I read it) to $1000
> plus mandatory jail time (should that be 6 months, instead of 1 year, just
> be make sure we're within the law?) per violation.
> K
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Caitlin Alexander wrote:
>
> I agree Karina.
>
> $10,000 per violation ($1,000 per really is chump change for mega-oil)
>
> Maximum jail time as defined by state law (Vogel thought it was 12 months
> per violation - we need to find out)
>
> Vogel recommended both of these in conjunction not and/or.
>
> Define the board members as specifically accountable for these violations
> not just the "corporation".
>
> -Caitlin
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You really think it's worth passing an ordinance that allows a judge to
>> snub his nose at us by giving an offender a $1/day fine? or probation? What
>> kind if disincentive is that? They could just come in anyway and pay the
>> puny fine. If we're going to work our butts off gathering signature, don't
>> we want the ordinance to actually do it's job?
>> K
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Baile Oakes wrote:
>>
>> I will vote no on this.
>>
>> Tim seems to agree.
>>
>> We have more than 11 people in our organization.
>>
>> We do not have a process in place to make a rush decision that represents
>> the will of the full CRNMC.
>>
>> A lot of people think we are ready to gather signatures.
>>
>> There is no definitive word of how long the process of amending will take.
>>
>> Shannon still has not heard back from Ben regarding this matter.
>>
>> We need all the time we can get to gather signatures.
>>
>> We have a good ordinance
>>
>> A Great Step Forward
>>
>> , not perfect,
>>
>> what is ?
>>
>> let's move forward with signatures and endorsements and get going.
>>
>> The clock is ticking
>>
>> yep
>>
>> Baile
>>
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:45 AM, karinajoy wrote:
>>
>> Want you to know, even if we change sec.4, it may add only a few days to
>> our process (they have 15 days, but I may be able to speed that up, since
>> the title and summary will not change).  Everything else is ready to move
>> forward, with the minor change to the ordinance language - the newspaper
>> publication is ready; the petition is ready; the Letter of Intent won't
>> change. We're ready to open the bank account and file form 410.
>>
>> The sooner we come to an agreement, the sooner we can start the clock
>> again. I am prepared to drive to the county today and resubmit the
>> Ordinance.
>>
>> So far out of 15 responses, 11 have been to go ahead and change sec 4a.
>> The other 4 did not say no.  Opinion on 4b is 50-50.
>>
>> Anyone´else have a strong opinion?
>> K
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:52 PM, karinajoy wrote:
>>
>> Sisters and Brothers,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Barry Vogel pointed this problem out before, but then Norman de Vall
>> raised the concern again. And Charles Wood responded with “I don't think
>> that simple use of the word "offense" makes it unenforceable, it just *gives
>> the judge too much latitude* to set the fine at whatever level he or she
>> pleases.* It could be $1/day. *The jury decides the facts (guilty or
>> not-guilty), Judges interpret the law (amount for the fine).*"*   They
>> all agree, we need to be more specific and strong in the enforcement
>> clause.
>>
>> So this is Barry's suggestion, as best I recall :
>> Sec. 4(a).
>>
>> Any corporation, government or natural person that violates any
>> prohibition of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a most serious
>> misdemeanor offense  and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to go
>> to prison for one year and shall 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On a second issue:
>> Sec. 4 (b) shall we strike out "or any resident of the County* " and
>> later "or the resident..." ?????*
>> *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?*
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So shall we make the change to 4a?  and keep or delete citizen
>> enforcement in 4b?
>>
>> Karina
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>

-- 
"The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've
seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as
speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're accountable.” Arundhati
Roy <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6134.Arundhati_Roy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140424/76743ea8/attachment.html 