In Part One I focused on the reactions to Judge Quidachay's decision nullifying Board of Supervisors Rule 6.25. Today I'll analyze the flawed Order and the lawsuit itself.

ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER

Let's start with a quick analysis of the technically flawed Order that was composed by Jim Sutton.Rule 201 of the California Rules of Court are very specific on the format of pleadings, and Sutton's "Order Granting Petitioners' Motion for Declaratory Relief" filed on July 20, 2006 violates Rule 201 on FIVE COUNTS.

201(f)(1) regarding the format of the first page clearly states that "In the space commencing 1 inch from the top of the page with line 1, to the left of the center of the page, the name, office address or, if none, residence address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address (if available), and State Bar membership number of the attorney for the party in whose behalf the paper is presented, or of the party if he or she is appearing in person."

Sutton's document violates this rule in that he failed to include the required information starting on Line 1 but rather started approximately one-quarter of an inch from the top of the page.

201(f)(2) clearly states that

"In the first 2 inches of space between lines 1 and 7 to the right of the center of the page, a blank space for the use of the clerk."

Sutton's document violates this rule in that he failed to leave the required amount of space for the Clerk of the Court to stamp the document as filed.

201(f)(3) clearly states

"On line 8, at or below 3 1/3 inches from the top of the paper, the title of the court."

Sutton's document violates this rule in that he includes the title of the court between Lines 2 and 3.

Finally, 201(g) clearly states

"Except for exhibits, each paper filed with the court must bear a footer in the bottom margin of each page, placed below the page number and divided from the rest of the document page by a printed line. The footer must contain the title of the paper (examples: "Complaint," "XYZ Corp.'s Motion for Summary Judgment") or some clear and concise abbreviation. The title of the paper must be in at least 10-point type."

Sutton's document violates this rule on TWO COUNTS. First, he failed to include the line separating the footer from the rest of the document, and second, Sutton failed to use the proper font size for the title of the paper and, indeed, used 8-point type for the title of the document.

ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION

The Chronicle pointed to Judge Quidachay's decision based solely on the lawsuit and not the underlying evidence and touted the judge's decision to promote the plaintiffs' alleged credibility. But let's take a close look at the ruling.

Judge Quidachay's Order states in part that:

"...San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rule 6.25 is invalid because it conflicts with Proposition I, which was passed by the voters and became effective December 17, 2004. Because Rule 6.25 conflicts with Proposition I, it constitutes an attempt to amend a voter initiative. The Board of Supervisors, however, neither may use its rule-making authority to legislate (San Francisco Charter section 2.105), nor may amend a voter initiative in a manner contrary to the voter initiative (Charter section 14.101)."

Charter Section 2.105 states in relevant part:

"The Board of Supervisors shall act only by written ordinance or resolution, except that it may act by motion on matters over which the Board of Supervisors has exclusive jurisdiction. All legislative acts shall be by ordinance."

This is the major blunder and resulting scandal created by Nathan Nayman and his cohorts, including Sup. Alioto-Pier. Alioto-Pier composed the flawed Prop I, and with the help of majority funding by Nayman, shoved Prop I down the throats of voters and claim -- backed by the judge's flawed decision -- that the Board cannot enact its own rules. Their argument is partially correct; however, the flaw lies with Prop I, which is an attempt to override the City Charter with an ordinance, which is illegal. Yet the plaintiffs base their case on the so-called "voter mandate" which in fact contains provisions directing the Board to act at its discretion to implement Prop I.

But first let's look at the second referenced Charter section, 14.101, which states in relevant part:

"No initiative or declaration of policy approved by the voters shall be subject to veto, or to amendment or repeal except by the voters, unless such initiative or declaration of policy shall otherwise provide."

The plaintiffs' argument, and the judge's ruling, rests on this short sentence, that the Board cannot amend an initiative but they deliberately ignored the most relevant part of Section 14.101, and that is "UNLESS SUCH INITIATIVE ... SHALL OTHERWISE PROVIDE." [Emphasis added]

Now let's look at the pertinent sections of Prop I, which clearly state in Sections 2 and 3 that the Board DOES have the discretion AND the authority to enact Rule 6.25. Section 2 gives the Board the authority to create Rule 6.25 and states in full:

"The voters urge the Board of Supervisors, upon the adoption of this measure, to adopt all necessary rules and procedures for its full implementation, including, but not limited to, a Rule of Order providing that the Board shall not consider or hold hearings on any proposed legislation until it has received the Office of Economic Analysis' report on the impact of the legislation, if any, on the San Francisco economy, and that the Board may waive this requirement by a two-thirds' vote if it finds that the public interest requires the immediate consideration of the measure."

And Section 3 gives the Board the authority to MODIFY PROP I ITSELF and states in full:

"The Board of Supervisors may amend the provisions of this measure to promote or better achieve the underlying goal of comprehensive and professional economic planning and analysis."

Putting aside the fact that Prop I itself is flawed in that the City Charter cannot be amended by an ordinance, the evidence is overwhelming that the "Hail Mary" Prop I lawsuit is a complete "blunder" in that the Board of Supervisors has the authority and the discretion to implement its own rules to set aside the 'urges' of Prop I. So why have these plaintiffs pursued this "expensive way to whine"? We have to assume that Nayman and his cohorts have a hidden agenda, and I believe that hidden agenda is to deny democracy to the people of San Francisco.

Here's how the plaintiffs will probably proceed -- indeed, they have already started. First, they will frame the appeal as an attempt by the City Attorney to overturn the will of the voters. As stated yesterday, the plaintiffs' parrot Pat Murphy has already insinuated this. The plaintiffs will continue their letter-writing campaign to deceive the people of San Francisco and will frame their arguments that city government in general refuses to listen to the will of the voters. The letter writers will hide themselves behind a veil of secrecy by not stating that they work for Nayman, the Chamber, SFSOS, BOMA, and the like.

And therein lies the devious nature of the plaintiffs, the denial of democracy to the people. The plaintiffs will claim that it's the Board of Supervisors who refuse to abide by the will of the voters -- of course, except for their puppets on the Board: Alioto-Pier, Sean Elsbernd, Bevan Dufty, and the departing Fiona Ma. In particular, the plaintiffs will attack the progressives and then claim that there are other candidates who would be more appropriate, that is, more puppets of the rich and infamous.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has already endorsed business-friendly David Chan to replace the departing Ma to become the fourth puppet, and Newsom will probably endorse the leading opponent to the honorable Chris Daly, which will be Alioto-Pier's legislative aide, Rob Black, as an attempt to further stack the Board with downtown's puppets.

Beyond Chron will continue to cover the "Hail Mary" Prop I lawsuit after City Attorney Dennis Herrera files the appeal.