Key Dates and Court Documents
Sequence of Court Events (including documents):
11/27/23: Court granted extension for filing Appellant Reply Brief and Reply to Motion to Dismiss, now both due on January 8, 2024:
Court's Order Granting Extension of Time
11/27/23: We filed four documents:
Application to Extend Time to File Appellant's Reply Brief
Application to Extend Time to File Reply to County Counsel's Motion to Dismiss
Application to Exceed Word Limit on Appellant's Reply Brief
Application to Exceed Word or Page Limit on Reply to County Counsel's Motion to Dismiss
-an application to exceed 14,000 word limit for our Appellant Reply Brief
-an application to exceed word limit for Reply to Motion to Dismiss
10/31/23: County Counsel filed the following documents. (Stay tuned: we have plenty of facts to be included in our Appellant's Reply Brief to refute their arguments):
9/17/23: County Counsel is supposed to file their brief by 9/20/22 (30 days after I filed my opening brief). But on 9/15/23, I received an email from County Counsel asking me to agree to a 30 day extension on their deadline. I said I would agree to his extension request if they would agree to advise the county elections office to cease its willful neglect of its pre-election mandatory ministerial duty to reject measure materials that do not conform to the requirements set out by the legislature. He replied saying "I receive your conditional response as a refusal of the Respondent's extension request, and will proceed accordingly". Subsequently, County Counsel filed a request for a 30 day extension which was granted by the Appellate Court.
Could the request for extension be for reasons other than what is cited? Me thinks yes.
On 9/15/23, he filed a request for extension with the Court. And on 9/17, I filed my objection to the extension. All of this is here:
Objection to Request for 30 day extension
Counsel's application for 30 day extension
8/21/23: Filed Appellant's Opening Brief and Appendix (i.e., key documents from trial court) with the Appellate Court:
8/9/23: RCSD held another Closed Session meeting referencing "Robell v. Church" and anticipated litigation. Despite emails to the DA and the District highlighting the fact there is no basis for a Closed Meeting (since the district isn't suing me, and I'm not suing the district), they proceeded to meet in closed session. Laws be damned!
6/25/23: I sent a letter to alert various authorities (including the SEC, CA Attorney General, CA State Treasurer) about the alarming secrecy and reckless behavior regarding RCSD secretly meeting to issue bonds before the expiration of the 60 day appeal deadline:
Letter to Authorities re: Bond Issuance
I only received a response from the CA Attorney General who said I should address the concerns with the local district or (board appointed) Citizens Bond Oversight Committee. Gee, do you think that will be effective?
6/22/23: Filed appeal and served the other party. County clerk estimates it will take 20-22 months for appellate court to make its ruling.
6/21/23: I reviewed the RCSD board agenda and watched the meeting that night. The agenda included minutes from the 5/24 board meeting (showing bond counsel in attendance). The district mentioned during the budget discussion they anticipated Series A bonds being settled June 28th. This is when I learned of the nefarious plans and reckless actions the district pursued.
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 60 day right to appeal the lower court's decision hadn't yet expired.
In other words, the bond counsel wanted to go ahead and float the bonds knowing the deadline for me to file an appeal had not yet expired. They didn't want me to know about their intent to do so, hence called a Closed Session meeting with an opaque reference to "anticipated litigation" even though they aren't suing me and I am not suing them (nor would either of us reasonably anticipate litigation against each other). This is an election contest where County Counsel is a named party, not the district. So this Closed Session is not permitted according to the Brown Act.
The only anticipated litigation where the district may be impacted is, ironically, as a result of the reckless decision they made at this very meeting: to float bonds before the 60 day appeal deadline. I honestly have no idea how the district or anyone could "undo" the bond issuance assuming I prevail on appeal or at the supreme court.
After closed session, the report out to the public was "The School Board received information from the district attorneys and will move forward with the recommendations". Present at the meeting were bond counsel (Bill Tunick and Janet Mueller from DWK). The bond counsel is paid a success fee only when bonds are issued.
Are you angry yet? You should be.
5/9/23: Trial Judge rules to dismiss case. Hard to ignore the bias and selective attention to certain facts while ignoring others as you read this!
Received requested copy of transcript from 4/18/23 trial:
5/2/23: I filed Robell filed the post-trial brief along with the visual aids (exhibits) I presented at trial. The document is long because of the need to rebut (with facts and case law) every one of County County's ludicrous arguments:
4/18/23: Trial was initiated at 9am and completed in 2.5 hours!
-Good news: this is FIRST ballot measure election contest in CA where proper procedures (Division 16 election procedures) where used and civil procedures (demurrers, ex parte motions, etc.) were not allowed (consistent with the law).
-Judge was clearly very biased in favor of the bond proponents. Next step: because the County Counsel pulled a dirty lawyer trick and served papers (via a secure email application) the night before trial at 5:01pm, she admonished them and allowed a response briefing from me. She will then render a decision (which I expect will be in favor of the schools). But then I have 30 days to appeal that decision to a higher court.
Judge's Order (granting Robell 10 days to file brief; ruling thereafter)
4/17/23: I was served with the following documents at 5:01pm (night before trial!). Essentially, these five documents are an attempt to get the judge to dismiss the case (and perhaps try and rattle me at the last minute within just hours of the start of trial):
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Declaration of Janet Mueller (DWK law firm representing school districts)
Declaration of Travis Dunn (registrar)
4/14/23: Proof of service filed (showing the County Sheriff served Mark Church a citation regarding the election contest:
4/13/23: Letter I received from DWK who is the attorney representing the school districts, saying "to avoid any further harm to taxpayers, this litigation should be dismissed immediately":
Letter from DWK (bond counsel for school districts)
4/6/23: Sheriff served Mark Church (consistent with Election Rules):
Proof of Service (Mark Church)
3/30/23:
Notice of Assignment and Hearing
Presiding Judge Elizabeth Lee signs "Order of Assignment and Setting Hearing on Statement of Election Contest:
Order of Assignment and Hearing
3/29/23: I filed the "Statement of Contest" with Sara Afu at the County Clerk's office:
Before filing, I met with Brian Kulich, County Counsel responsible for Elections, to discuss my concerns regarding County Counsel's role in the election. Below is a summary of the discussion which I sent Brian after our meeting:
2/15/23: Redwood City School District (RCSD) approved the issuance of $90 million of Series A bonds (subject to the election contest subsequently filed on 3/29).
Comments
Post a Comment