It woukld appear on its face that none of the candidates have any DIRECT relationship with the local real estate or apartment industries.

My only requirement is that the City Council takes steps to guarrenty that the current state court rules and the letter of the laws regarding the CSFDRA will be enforced without any bias.

The previous work done in the City Council in 2016 did not do so.

Given that these positions ARE JUDICIAL, these positions require the APPEARANCE of NONBIAS, let alone DEMONSTRATED BIAS.

BOTH Tom Means and Vanessa Honey have DEMONSTRATED BIAS in their actions. THIS MUST BE STOPPED.

Most of what BM posts is incorrect. For example the RHC is a mostly a legislative body. Very rarely have they acted as a judicial body. Except for a claim against Ramos, there have been no findings of bias by the staff attorneys. BM claims the RHC is not following the rules, but they have won the decisIon on MH parks. They have not been successfully challenged on any of the procedures they have followed. Picking a Different CPI measure for FRR is not a violation of the ordinance.

BM makes a lot of claims but fails to back them up with any facts. He just likes throwing pasta on the wall to see if anything sticks. If things were this bad, the FPPP or staff attorneys would file complaints against them.

BM just disagrees with the RHC decisions. So what. He just likes to complain. Maybe he should have applied for the open positions.

In response to wrong you said:

“Most of what BM posts is incorrect. For example the RHC is a mostly a legislative body. Very rarely have they acted as a judicial body.”

BUT THE#Y ARE A JUDICIARY BODY IF YOU READ THE CSFRA SECTION 1709 IT STATES THIS:

“(d) Powers and Duties.

The Committee shall have the following powers and duties:

(5) ADJUDICATE PETITIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1710 AND 1711 HEREIN AND ISSUE DECISIONS WITH ORDERS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.

(6) ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS AND SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

(9) HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS. “

THIS IS PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG, THEY ARE JUDICIARY OFFICERS UNDER THE STATE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION. You said:

“Except for a claim against Ramos, there have been no findings of bias by the staff attorneys.”

THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE ASSIGNED THEIR TASKS BY THE RHC, NOT THE PUBLIC, THEY ARE USED BY THE RHC MEMBERS ADVOCATING FOR LANDLORDS TO INTIMIDATE EMILY RAMOS. You said:

“BM claims the RHC is not following the rules, but they have won the decisIon on MH parks.”

BUT THEY PROVIDECNO EVIDENCE TO INVALIDATE ANY HEARING OFFICER DURING THEIR WORK, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS. MOBILE HOMES ARE NOT AN ISSUE, YET. You said:

“They have not been successfully challenged on any of the procedures they have followed. Picking a Different CPI measure for FRR is not a violation of the ordinance. “

I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT YET. You said:

“BM makes a lot of claims but fails to back them up with any facts. He just likes throwing pasta on the wall to see if anything sticks. If things were this bad, the FPPP or staff attorneys would file complaints against them. “

STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CITY CITIZENS. YOU KNOW THAT. THE FPPP IS NOT INVOLVED BECAUSE RHC MEMBERS ARE NOT ELECTED, THEY ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. You said:

“BM just disagrees with the RHC decisions. So what. He just likes to complain. Maybe he should have applied for the open positions.”

WHY WOULD I BE SUBJECT TO LOSS OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO POINT OUT ERRORS.

More BS from BM. Fails to understand that RHC is mostly a legislative body. They are not just a judiciary body. You are also wrong about FPPC. RHC members must file a form 700. Also wrong that RHC attorneys are employees of city. They are hired as outside consultants. Sure it’s ok for you to express incorrect facts . That’s your free speech right

In response to wrong you said:

“More BS from BM. Fails to understand that RHC is mostly a legislative body. They are not just a judiciary body.”

SIMPLY PUT YOU ARE INCORRECT AS LONG AS ANY ADJUDICATION IS PERFORMED IT IS CALLED A “QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY” as defined as:


Definition of quasi-judicial

1 : having a partly judicial character by possession of the right to hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules and regulations AND TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE GENERAL MANNER OF COURTS”( Web Link

QUASI-JUDICIAL CONDUCT IS THE SAME AS JUDICIAL CONDUCT IN CALIFORNIA AND THESE MUST APPLY TO THE RHC:

“CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective October 10, 2018; adopted effective January 15, 1996; previously amended March 4, 1999, December 13, 2000, December 30, 2002, June 18, 2003, December 22, 2003, January 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, January 1, 2008, April 29, 2009, January 1, 2013, January 21, 2015, August 19, 2015, and December 1, 2016.

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.

Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.”( Web Link

THUS YOU ARE SERIOUSLY MISTAKEN, ONLY IF THE RHC DID NO ADJUDICATION WOULD YOU BE CORRECT. You said:

“You are also wrong about FPPC. RHC members must file a form 700.”

FORM 700 IS SIMPLY A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT. NOTHING MORE. THE FPPC WOULD ONLY INVESTIGATE WHEN A REQUEST IS MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR A SPECIFIC COMPLAINT IS FILED. IT DOES NOT ACT INDEPENDENTLY. You said:

“Also wrong that RHC attorneys are employees of city. They are hired as outside consultants.”

YES YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT ALSO SINCE THE RHC IS THEIR CLIENT THEY WILL ONLY PERFORM TASKS THE RHC REQUESTS OF THEM. NO ATTORNEY WILL ACT IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR CLIENT UNESS REQUIRED BY LAW. THE CITIZENS HAVE NO SAY IN THAT SITUATION AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

“ Sure it’s ok for you to express incorrect facts . That’s your free speech right”

BUT SO FAR I DOCUMENTED THE TRUTH, THAT THIS BODY MUST COMPORT WITH JUDICIAL ETHICS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WILL HAVE GREAT CONSEQUENCES.

Businesman,

The RHC is elected by a board not the public. They are no more Judiciary than you are the governor of California. Of course maybe you think your entitled to be?
Anyway, back to reality, you are wrong again.

Oh, by the way, I love your Judicial ethics. It's inconsistent with every Judicial employee or Judge I have ever met in the state of California and I know many.
The Canons or promises of our Judiciary have no place in our Judiciary at this time and don't apply.

You just don't get it that we live in times of corruption that starts at our courts and works its way down to the cop on the corner. Justice is just of our heritage that got lost along the way especially in California.

THIS IS WHY TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!

[Post removed due to copying text from another site/source]

Businessman,

You can cite any case law you want but that is not how it works in our courts today.
It is all about money and I have seen Judges ignore statutes in our Civil code as they are read to them. There is no justice in the courts and this is why money and politics talks and law walks in our courtrooms today.

Judges have full immunity and will decide cases on prejudice and don't even care that it is obvious. They expect that if you take it to appeal at whatever financial costs, it doesn't matter because "that Judge up there has my back anyway".

Absolute corruption!