Ballot Label Cheating in Redwood City

 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