Posts Tagged ‘attorney’
Just Released: “MASSIVE COMMUNITY PROTEST AT SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR MARIO WOODS” – Today, Dec 18th, at 11:00 AMFriday, December 18th, 2015
Here the release.
(That 3% figure sounds low, way low, just saying.)
“Justice for Mario Woods Coalition MEDIA ADVISORY December 17, 2015
For Immediate Release
For more information: Nguyen Weeks, Phelicia Jones
MASSIVE COMMUNITY PROTEST AT SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR MARIO WOODS
December 18, 2015 (San Francisco) – Hundreds of youth, families, community and religious leaders throughout San Francisco and the Bay Area will hold a massive rally on the steps of 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco to demand justice for the murder of Mario Woods by San Francisco Police officers. After the rally, the group will march to the offices of District Attorney, George Gascón to demand justice for Mario Woods.
In a Times.com article, John Burris, attorney for the Woods family states, “our view is that this was a person who was shot multiple times at a time when he did not put officers’ lives in imminent danger.” Attorney Burris goes on to mention that the San Francisco Police Department broadly exhibits a “continuing pattern and practice of misconduct.” Other witnesses claim police shot Mario Woods (+20) times.
The national trend of police abuse is all the more troubling in the City of San Francisco as the African American makes up 3% of the population, but continues to be disproportionately impacted by police murders and abuse.
The Justice for Mario Coalition is made up of concerned residents of San Francisco, advocates, leaders and community organizers who want to stop the trend of violence experienced by the black community in San Francisco at the hands of the police. The coalition demands are:
• The immediate removal of Police Chief Gregory Suhr
• Officers be charged with the murder of Mario Woods
Where: Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco
When: December 18, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Who: Hundreds of community members
What: The San Francisco and Bay Area community demand justice for the execution of Mario Woods who was killed by a firing squad.
If District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Needs To Be Replaced Soon, Two People with Legitimacy are Abe Simmons and Kat AndersonMonday, December 15th, 2014
First things first, you tell me how big a deal this is:
And don’t niss this part:
“Theoretically speaking, I think they then become the same campaign,” said John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission.
Kaboom. Did an effort (from Janet Reilly, or some other Reilly)…
…lead to this…
…almost four long years later?
OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS:
1. Why does big news always seem to come out post meridiem on a Day of Frigg, you know, like on a Friday evening? Funny that.
2. Could this situation explain why Mark Farrell nominated (law student(!)) Katy Tang as interim Board of Supervisors President?
3. Is Mark Farrell going to serve out his second term? IDK.
4. If he doesn’t, who’s going to replace him? Mmmm…
The election that District 2 held four years ago was narrowly lost by Janet Reilly, but I can’t see her ever getting appointed D2 Supe in today’s political environment.
Now, what about the people who came in third and fourth, the people who myabe could have / should have formed an ANYBODY BUT JANET ranked-choice voting troika / three-way with Mark Farrell?
Meet Ivy Leaguer Abraham Simmons:
Does he still live in the District? IDK.
Now meet Stanfoo-educated Kat Anderson:
I’m thinking either of these two attorneys could slot right into the job.
You know, if necessary.
Here’s what people have been talking about over the weekend:
Agenda – December 16, 2014
- Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws. Possible Closed Session. (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order; FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
- Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
- Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation: San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114. (Action.)
- Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated litigation. (Discussion.)
Number of possible cases: 1
- If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
- Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation. (Discussion and possible action.)
Motion: The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.
- Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
I suppose we’ll find out more tomorrow…
You know, I was just thinking how long it’s been since I’ve seen any waterlogged phone books stacked up on the Streets of San Francisco.
But now, they’re back, all over the place. See?
But then, nobody picks them up and then they’re garbage. Or recycling.
Hey, how many days does it take for an unwanted stack of phone books to become garbage? One? Two?
And hey, what about the plastic around the phone books – is that the recyclable kind? IDK.
And if a hundred get stacked up outside a large apartment building, then the super’s gotta go through and unwrap each one? Sounds like a chore.
Speaking of which, here’s a dozen or so 2015 415 books in a Recology blue bin:
Poor naive Dolan Law Firm – all that marketing money, wasted!
I’ve said this before – nobody in the 415 wants your product, phone book industry. What you all should do is deliver your books, unwrapped, direct to Recology and save us all a lot of trouble.
PS: “Opt out” is a lie. That’s just what they want you to do, opt out. Oh, please take all my information, you know, to prove I am who I say I am, so that the phone book industry can rest assured that “bad actors” aren’t impersonating me in order to deprive me of my phone book, for some odd reason, and I’m supposed to “opt out” each and every year, the better to keep track of me? OK fine. And oh, you dinosaurs have a “sustainability report?” Well why don’t you people print it out on paper and send it to me every year, whether I want it or not? GREAT!
Sympathy for the Landlord Who Inherited the Apartment You Rent: Writer CW Nevius Cries a River over Rent ControlThursday, October 30th, 2014
HERE ARE JUST TEN OR SO THINGS WRONG WITH THE LATEST EFFORT FROM CW NEVIUS:
“Real estate attorney Elizabeth Erhardt has an incredibly unpopular outlook. She’s sympathetic to San Francisco landlords. And before being drowned out by a chorus of boos and hisses…”
THIS MIGHT COME AS A SURPRISE TO THE NEVIUS, BUT THIS “OUTLOOK” IS NOT “INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR.” HOW ABOUT SOMEWHAT UNPOPULAR, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD? STRIKE ONE
“They inherited a…. It’s her sole source of income.”
SO NEVIUS, YOU COULDN’T FIND ANY RICH SAN FRANCISCO LANDOWNER WHO DIDN’T INHERIT PROPERTY? EVERYBODY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE GOT THEIR LAND FOR FREE WITH A STEPPED-UP BASIS, AND AT LEAST ONE IS LANDED GENTRY WITHOUT A J-O-B? WHAT IS THIS, ANOTHER EPISODE OF DOWNTON ABBEY? IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A
PIMP (LAND)LORD? DON’T YOU SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR HARD-LUCK LANDLORD STORIES HERE? STRIKE TWO
“Oh come on, you say. Subletting without the landlord’s permission is illegal. Just toss them out.”
FIRST OF ALL NEVIUS, SUBLETTING WITHOUT THE LANDLORD’S PERMISSION ISN’T “ILLEGAL.” STRIKE THREE. AND SECOND OF ALL, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, YOU’RE CALLING INTO QUESTION THE MANAGEMENT SKILLZ OF THE OWNERS. OF COURSE MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE WORKED OUT AT THE SF RENT BOARD, BUT YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, OK FINE. BUT, FOR THAT, STRIKE FOUR.
“Erhardt says she had a case where the original tenant was paying $19 a month for his apartment because he’d installed sub-leasers to pay most of the way.”
SO FINE, TAKE IT TO THE RENT BOARD – WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE? PROVE UP YOUR CASE AND YOU’LL WIN, EASY-PEASY. AWWWW, THAT’S TOO HARD FOR YOU, YOU DON’T HAVE STOMACH TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF LANDLORDING IN SF? WELL, WHO PROMISED YOU, THE INHERITOR, THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, WHO PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN? WHY NOT INSTEAD JUST SELL THE PROPERTY AND ENJOY YOUR UNEARNED INCOME? FOR NOT STATING THE OBVIOUS, THAT’S STRIKE FIVE FOR THE NEVIUS.
Critics say these are just a few anecdotal examples.
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHO ACTUALLY SAID THIS? AND HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF STRAW DOGS HAVE YOU BIRTHED OVER THE YEARS, YOU LAZY WRITER, CW NEVIUS? STRIKE SIX. (LET’S BRING OUT THE “T”)
HEY NEVIUS, YOU DON’T HAVE AN EDITOR, HUH? I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF TEH TYPOS. AND THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM IN ITSELF, BUT AN EDITOR WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING STUFF LIKE HOW NOT GETTING A LANDLORD’S PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING IS “ILLEGAL.” WHAT YOU NEED IS SOMEBODY TO GO THROUGH ALL YOUR SENTENCES AND THEN SAY, “NOW IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE?” SO YEAH, SURE, YOU CAN FIX THE TYPOS, BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ERRORS WHAT _AREN’T_ TYPOS? STRIKE SEVEN
A simple concept, rent-controlled apartments for those who need a financial break, has become as Byzantine as the tax code.
WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. NUMBER ONE, SF RENT CONTROL IS NOT “AS BYZANTINE AS OUR TAX CODE,” NOT BY A LONG SHOT. FOUL TIP. NUMBER TWO, RENT CONTROL WAS MEANT FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST “THOSE WHO NEED A FINANCIAL BREAK.” RIGHT? ‘CAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANS-TESTED, RIGHT? IN THAT WAY, IT’S SIMILAR TO PROP 13, RIGHT? HEY NEVIUS, DO YOU PROPOSE MEANS-TESTING PROP 13? OH YOU DON’T? MMMM… AND HEY, AREN’T YOU A SAN FRANCISCO NEWCOMER WHOSE SOMA CONDO IS UP IN VALUE BIG-TIME SINCE YOU BOUGHT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO? HEY, DON’T YOU BENEFIT FROM PROP 13? DO YOU REALLY NEED IT, NEVIUS? HEY, WHY DON’T WE MEANS-TEST YOUR PROP 13 BENEFITS, NEVIUS? STRIKE EIGHT
“Rent control was enacted in 1979,” said New. “The law has been changed, like, 72 times since then.”
AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE, LIKE, AT THE BEHEST OF … THE SFAA, RIGHT? IS JANAN NEW COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHANGES HER ORG INSTIGATED? WHY DIDN’T YOU ASK HER THAT, MR. EVERYMAN? STRIKE NINE
“It’s the haves against the have-nots,” Erhardt said, “and every tenant attorney thinks they are Robin Hood.”
AND DOES EVERY TENANT ATTORNEY THINK THEY ARE ROBIN HOOD, IRL? NOPE. STRIKE TEN, AND YOU, CW NEVIUS, THE MIGHTY CASEY, ARE OUT.
Finally, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Acknowledges that Pedestrians Don’t “ALWAYS” Have the Right of WayWednesday, September 24th, 2014
Well, this is refreshing, this new bit from the SFBC.
You see, they used to go around telling peds that peds “always” have the right of way.*
But, the always is now gone from their new materials.
Do you think the SFBC learned something from this tiny WordPress blog?
To review, telling peds they always have the right of way is always the wrong thing to do.
*That was all the way back in 2012, except now this old SFBC posting is down the memory hole, lost forever. Also lost forever are the SFBC’s tax forms, which used to be posted but now are hidden away, oh well.
Little-Known Fact: It’s Currently ILLEGAL for TNC’s Like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar to Pick Up or Drop Off Passengers at SFOThursday, July 17th, 2014
Sidecar driver Eric of Baghdad By The Bay has the deets.
Now here is where San Francisco Police Department Commander / fully-license CA attorney Richard Corriea distinguishes betwixt picking up and dropping off, but I don’t know how operational that distinction is currently.
I mean, for example, a cabbie out of a non-San Francisco locale such as Daly City is currently allowed to drop off fares legally but is not allowed to pick up anywhere at SFO. To do so is a misdemeanor. (Even San Francisco hacks are prevented from picking up at SFO without first paying a fee* and waiting in line.) So I guess there’s still a distinction, but Eric is saying there isn’t one anymore as far as TNC’s are concerned.
Here’s what I didn’t know, from Eric’s report of July 16th, 2014:
“Some of the TNC’s are being a bit passive aggressively defiant in that they are telling drivers they will cover the cost of the ticket [which I have heard runs between $220-$600 depending on what they write you up on], but they aren’t telling drivers not to take people to the airport. This makes some of these TNC’s look bad to the CPUC who has given them the right to operate in California. Sidecar has officially told all of it’s drivers to not accept rides to or from SFO and that is easy because riders have to put in their destination when they request a ride. Sidecar is also working on blocking requests to the airport until they can resolve the problem with SFO. Those other TNC’s aren’t doing this.”
If I were a TNC driver, I don’t know how happy I’d be after getting $600 from my employer as compensation for a misdemeanor rap.
I’ll tell you, I don’t know how proud SFGov should be of the existing taxi system.
For example, here’s a fully-licensed and insured and regulated San Francisco taxi taking tourists from SFO to SF in 2010. They died.
Will TNC cars end up catching on fire and killing people? We’ll see.
I’m sure that this sitch will sort itself out sooner or later, but things are pretty messed up right now…
*Back in the 1990’s, some SF taxi drivers would also pay a bribe to get to the front of the line. At SFO, there are SFGov employees called “starters” who organize taxi operations. A system was set up to allow drivers who paid a $5 bribe to improperly get into the “short” line of drivers waiting to pick up arriving passengers. So a driver might end up paying $60 in bribes but get in exchange receive twelve or so lucrative “airport runs” in just one shift. So I guess this was a win-win for the bribe offerer and bribe receiver…
Google Seeks the “Right Balance” on the Right To Be Forgotten: “Expert Advisory Council” to Hold Meetings in Europe SoonFriday, July 11th, 2014
[So in five words I’m counting two puns and one subtle jab at the possibility of an absence of balance in this latest unappealable edict handed down from the Court of Justice.]
So here’s the wind-up:
“In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a “right to be forgotten.” Today, we published an op-ed by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer, in the U.K.’s The Guardian, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France’s Le Figaro and Spain’s El Pais, discussing the ruling and our response. We’re republishing the op-ed in full below. -Ed.”
And here’s the pitch – the final two grafs:
“That’s why we’ve also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we’re announcing today. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisors to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply. Its public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (like criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court’s decision for European Internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.”
“The issues here at stake are important and difficult, but we’re committed to complying with the court’s decision. Indeed it’s hard not to empathize with some of the requests we’ve seen—from the man who asked that we not show a news article saying he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he’s able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter’s name as she had been the victim of abuse. It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.”
“Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer“
Well played, G!
The SF Opera, Symphony, and Ballet Team Up to Offer Estate Planning Advice for LGBT Couples on June 5thWednesday, April 23rd, 2014
Well, Gentle Reader, you’re richer, older, and wiser than I, so I won’t spell out who’s doing what for why.
I think this might be good for you:
|Deb L. Kinney explains what you need to know post Windsor and DOMA
Estate planning for the LGBT community has always been complicated. With changes in the law since the seminal case of The United States v. Windsor, same-sex couples are afforded most federal recognition, but are there simpler plans? How does or would marriage change your estate plan or your income, estate and property tax issues? Does it matter if you move from California or have income or assets in other states?
Deb L. Kinney from Johnston Kinney and Zulaica LLP will lead a lively seminar and discussion on the various changes in the law since Windsor was decided. Specifically Deb will talk about estate planning and whether you want one trust or two, social security benefits and how to take advantage of lifetime and death benefits, the importance of properly titling and/or retitling real property and other assets, Medicare benefits, pre-nuptial agreements, deferred tax retirement accounts, and charitable giving.
Join us on June 5th from 6pm to 8pm at the Chris Hellman Center for Dance, 455 Franklin Street, San Francisco. For more information about this event, please contact San Francisco Ballet Planned Giving Manager Elizabeth Lani at 415.865.6623 email@example.com.
This event is jointly hosted by:
(And let me just say that New College of the Law is what you make of it, or rather, was what you made of it since it’s defunct now. Some, like infamous non-attorney “Ivory Madison,” want to use it to make boasts about being “trained as an attorney,” whilst others, you know, graduated, passed the bar and developed a specialty – which do you think is more upworthy, just saying.)