Ballot Label Cheating in Redwood City

Thank you for considering filing an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief/letter in support of the appeal!   Help stop the widespread practice of local governments using public money to put their local measure campaigns, literally, on the ballot by filing an amicus brief in this appeal. It's is a very impactful way to help all of us stop the rigging of elections and theft of billions of dollars at every election! And if you don't know how the money is stolen, you may want to read the opening brief I filed with the Appellate Court on Aug 21, 2023: Opening Brief Rules Regarding Amicus Curiae Briefs: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_200 As you can see, Amicus briefs are due 14 days after the reply brief.  So the due date for filing a brief is January 15, 2024.  Template to Help Get You Started: Here is a template pre-populated with basic case information about these election contests to help you get started (it is google...

 The local Redwood City Pulse publication covered the appeal: https://www.rwcpulse.com/top-story/redwood-city-resident-keeps-up-legal-fight-against-county-elections-chief-7472232 8/30/23 Redwood City Pulse Article re: Appeal So many problems with the Magistrate's conclusions.  She provided no statutory analysis regarding how she reached her conclusions. Instead, she searched for (or used County Counsel's) statutes that seemed to support a desired conclusion without context. For example, she claims that as long as the amount of the bonds is included in the ballot question, the election cannot be invalidated.  At the trial, I asked if it would therefore be ok for the tax proponents to promise to solve world peace and world hunger as long as the bond amount is disclosed? She said that was a hypothetical. That is completely ridiculous and doesn't make sense. And, as Judge Judy would say, if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.  So how did she arrive at this prepostero...

Did Redwood City School District (RCSD) meet in secret to hide its intent to float bonds subject to the election contest before the appeal window was closed? FACTS: 2/15/23:  RCSD Board authorized the issuance and sale of Series A bonds ($90 million)   3/29/23: I filed the Statement of Contest with the San Mateo Superior Court 5/9/23:  Judge Healy ruled to dismiss the election contest case.  But DWK (the district's bond counsel) knew I have 60 days to file an appeal. 5/24/23: RCSD Board had a closed session, simply titled "Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation". There was no other information given to the public as to what this was about. Zero.  But what really happened behind closed doors (with DWK, the district's bond counsel attending) was a calculated, deliberate strategy by DWK (the district's bond counsel who attended the closed session) to float the Series A bonds despite the fact they were subject to the Election Contest where the 6...

Redwood City School District (RCSD) has recently held TWO Closed Session meetings to discuss the election contest ( Robell v. Church ). Both closed sessions violate the Brown Act (Gov Code 54956.9) . "The law is crystal clear," Robell said. "There is no attorney-client privilege in public meetings outside of defined exceptions. A public agency can only have a closed session to discuss litigation when it's suing someone, being sued, or has credible exposure to be sued." What is even more utterly outrageous is the fact that Robell gave a heads-up to both the RCSD School Trustees as well as the San Mateo District Attorney before the most recent 8/9/23 school board meeting where a closed session to discuss Robell v. Church was on the agenda . See correspondence to them here: Email to District Attorney Email to RCSD Trustees As anyone can see, instead of enforcing the law as written, the DA apparently just went along with the school's bond counsel. See Robell...

What are these election contests about? Government using public money to take sides in an election by putting the campaign on the ballot: Scales of Justice Legal Framework Exhibit showing the obvious voter impact of non conforming vs. conforming ballot labels: RCSD Ballot Label Examples List of 100 Ballot Labels from Nov 2022 Election (71% passed), showing the widespread problem of campaigns on ballot labels: California's 100 Ballot Measures from Nov 2022 Election

The First Appellate Court of San Francisco has received the Notice of Appeal and assigned it to Division 4 with Case Number A168184.  The Presiding Judge is Justice Brown. Ultimately, there will be a panel of 3 justices hearing the case. Oral arguments (15 minutes each side) likely to take place in the first half of 2024 (possibly later). You can view case documents and signup for notifications regarding the case by logging into the Appellate Court website and doing the following: 1) Go to   www.courts.ca.gov/1dca.htm 2) Click on the blue box that says “Search for Case Information” on the right side of screen 3) Enter case number A168184 4) You can view information by selecting any of the various blue text boxes under “1st Appellate District”. 5) You can signup for automatic email notifications about the case by selecting the “click here” link at the bottom of the page.