Diamond Appeals DPOC Removal and CRC Solutions – Liberal OC

Diamond Appeals DPOC Removal and CRC Solutions - Liberal OC
Bizarro Greg Diamond

A former member of the DPOC Central Committee and a party board member has filed an up-to-date grievance about his withdrawal from the Orange County Democratic Get together in November. CDP Chris Myers despatched this e mail final week:

To interested events:

The State Social gathering has acquired a timely grievance concerning the CRC choice in the Diamond DPOC Problem, issued January 20, 2019.

events can reply in writing on the newest on 17 March 17. This matter might be heard on the subsequent frequently scheduled assembly of the Credentials Committee after the deadline for reply.

As said within the Conformity Evaluation Committee (choice of the CRC, "the decision is so decided and valid unless and until a successful appeal has been made, it is decided and unlike the CRC or the Rules Committee." CRC Determination hooked up [19659002] You possibly can share this grievance with some other interested social gathering



Chris Masami Myers
Managing Director
Democratic Celebration of California

Mr Mr. Diamond, dated February 1 Day 2019, the content material of which is 10 pages in PDF format, has made some small mistakes which are identified alongside the best way, and I can solely say that if Diamond wins his grievance someway, I depart his deportation on the November 5, 2018 weblog submit, which requires voters to not forged a poll on a candidate accepted by DPOC in Anaheim district 2, which clearly favors the republic This action is open and closed on the subject of breaking the principles. The rationale I am convinced that this help given by the Diamond Trail Todd Spitzer was designed to censure motion Lou Correa and Assemblyman Tom Daly distrust of the 2020 elections.


Attraction for Compliance Fee Opinion in Greg Diamond v DPOC, 2018

Grievance from a Compliance Committee just lately issued a press release and order regarding my expulsion from the Orange County Democratic Social gathering Monday, November 26, 2018, out there at The directions referred to therein, as set out under

The attraction of this provision, if any, have to be lodged with the CDP Secretary, copies to the Chairman of the CDP Central Committee within twelve days of the date of adoption of this determination. (Article XII (6) (a).) Subsequently, all appeals have to be filed on or before February 1, 2019 on the Sacramento Office of the Democratic Celebration of California, and might be appealed to the subsequent CDP Appointment Committee when it is made

So far as their position and jurisdiction, they’re the identical as in my unique attraction, which adds to the very fact of the unfavorable opinion expressed by CDP.

I do not distinguish this doc in some other part than dealing separately with each of the 4 complaints, discover what I have of their respective holdings of each, and then make a number of objections to that state. On this context, I’ll retain all my rights of attraction.

CRC said that I made 4 complaints within the grievance:

1. DPOC's statutes do not permit him to be faraway from the County Committee; 2. DPOC did not give adequate discover of the time and procedures for the consultation; three. The DPOC shouldn’t have used a majority vote and didn’t give enough notice of the principles on the abolition of membership, including a change from two-thirds majority to majority; and four. DPOC procedures have been discriminatory because that they had no incapacity.

Its conclusions for every of them are as follows:

1. As regards the principles of: DPOC

CRC quoted the former President Fran Sdaoa saying that I’ve violated the guidelines that permit for removing if a member accepts the "one-party candidate" by supporting Republican candidates in the race piirivaltuutettuun common election, one other Republican towards a candidate, a Republican Social gathering was endorsed by the Republicans supported by a Democratic Celebration member who misplaced his first appearance.

DPOC of Parliamentarians of Jonathan Adler stated the official assertion (which was related to my grievance, "the defense assured that the OC GOP endorsed Tony Rackauckasin OC DA: for, only he, if anyone, is suitable for the phrase" second-get together candidate ", so julkaisutapahtumasi to resist him and vote in favor of his opponent, Todd Spitzer did not infringe the prohibition of the rules mentioned above. Adler pointed out that this language came straight from the electoral code, when that provision was adopted, whereby (before the "prime two main") "second-get together candidate" elections were definitely the other party candidates (a separate provision affects primary elections)

CRC Holding 1A. DPOC of the opinion should be valid, if both interpretations are reasonable

CRC announced that asked the question "neutral competitors," "Means candidates authorised by the other social gathering, which Mr. Diamond is e candidate or registered in one other celebration in response to DPOC? CRC mentioned each interpretations for a very long time. Although the CRC didn’t discover the interpretation of Diamond unreasonable, it doesn’t think about that DPOC can be unreasonable. Given the reasonableness of each interpretations, the CRC provides DPOC the respect to interpret its own rule.

Assertion of objection 1A.1: Parliament's opinion is 'DPOC opinion'

In line with the principles, this respect ought to have been handed on to a parliamentarian – in this case a educated appellant with in depth information of the principles of CDP and DPOC, as an alternative of the state electoral code and the Robert rulers – as an alternative of the chairman, who shouldn’t be a specific lawyer and a educated parliamentarian, he asked for his advice on such matters. Article 5 (3) of the provisions of

. 6 Parliamentarian

A. At the request of the representative, the parliamentarian advises the chairman and members of the county council on applicable procedures for organizing conferences based mostly on these rules, the state electoral code, the principles of the CDP and the rulers of Robert. [19659002TässätapauksessaparlamentaarikkoolisellainenjollaDPOC:npuheenjohtajaeiolluttulkinnutsäännöstämelkopaljonmitätahansayleisestitunnustettuaoikeutetuntulkinnanteoriaajotavoisihalutasoveltaa:alkuperäinensanallinenmerkitysalkuperäinentarkoitustaitoimintoHyväksyttyäänsäännösolitarkoitusjasentarkoituksenaoliestäätoisenosapuolenhyväksymänehdokkaanvastustaminenkoskatämäkaikkitapahtuivaaleissaSääntöjenkohdantämänosantasapainossaselvennetäänettämuidensäännöstentarkoituksenaonsuojellademokraattisenpuolueentekemienvalintojenetujavaaleissajoissademokraattiolikäynnissä;OikeudellisentulkinnanperiaatteidenyksinkertainensoveltaminenonettätätäsäännöstätulkitaansamallatavallaSäännökselläeipyrittyestämääntukea”kahdenpahanpienemmälle”ensisijassajossademokraattisenpuolueeneduteivätolleetvaarassa;eikämyöskäänoleviitteitäsiitäettäsitäolisikoskaankäytetty(DPOConuhrannutoikeudenväittäämuutenaikaisemmastahistoriastakoskapuheenjohtajaSdaokutenainakinkaksiedeltävääpuheenjohtajaaeinimittänytDPOC:nhistorioitsijaasillähänenolipakkotehdäsen60päivänkuluessahänentoimikautensaalkamisestajokavoisiovatsäilyttäneettämänkysymyksenkannaltaolennaisenaineiston(katsoDPOC:nsäännötV1C)(toimittajahuomauttiettäMrDiamondkeskuskomiteanjäsenolisivoinuttuodasenesiinmillointahansamaaliskuun2017jälkeenjaei)[19659002] Statement 1A.2: The DPOC's alleged statement isn’t probably the most natural interpretation

The CRC's assertion makes use of a authorized interpretation of Canon, which turns out to be a sword that cuts each methods. the primary discussion is a part of this):

[T] he CRC additionally states that if DPOC would have most popular the term "second-party candidate" to mean "the other party approved (or designated) candidate," it might have used the word "Accepted" ( or named) because it did the following clause ("the candidate appointed and approved by this party"). However it isn’t, and subsequently the most effective interpretation of the term "second-party candidate" is "a registered candidate of another party".

This reasoning is flawed for at the least three reasons:

1. As Parliamentarians Adler stated, they used this wording, since this was the wording used within the electoral code earlier than the "Top Two Primary Day", and at the moment it referred to the opposite celebration to simply accept or to nominate the candidate. In any other case you would not should, until that they had purpose to deviate from the code language.

2. One can simply as simply say that:

If DPOC hoped that the words "the other party's candidate" means "a candidate of another party (or another candidate) designated, approved by the other party (or it is named)", it might have uses the expression

CRC claims that this term "named" or "accepted" is ineffective as a result of it used the time period "nominated and approved by the party" in the next clause, and would have accomplished so twice. that this was written so, as it seems, is that the phrase "provide support or open prefer the other party's candidate or a candidate who opposes the party's candidate and approval", wouldn’t be adequately changed by "provide support or open a preference for a candidate who has registered another party or candidate who opposes a candidate registered in this party "because crucial thing for the candidate is that they have been appointed and accepted, not just registration. (At the least my age reminds me that Neo-Tom Tom Metzger was registered as democratic when he slipped into common elections, however many social gathering officers opposed him – and even keep in mind that individuals voted for their opponent quite than jeopardizing the choice of a Nazi who disguised as democracy – because his mere registration was not his Subsequently, it will not be used to "register" in one other clause, and there isn’t any cause to think about parallelism in the first clause.

3. The revised CDP tips, included into the DPOC guidelines, use the right formatting! Article II.9.B states that the DPOC provision in query is a sibling rule:

This committee might take away members if, throughout their membership, such member corporations take part in non-get together preparations. democratic; publicly prioritize the opposite celebration; publicly supports the fact that voters aren’t allowed to vote for any candidate accepted by this committee; or who publicly helps or opens its privilege to a candidate who is registered as a non-social gathering Democratic, two open priority teams nominated by voters.

CDP recognized the change made by the Prime Two headquarters and determined to make the change accepts a position that, in accordance with CRC, is a pure interpretation of DPOC's rules. In 2013, CDP's place was as follows:

This committee might take away members if its membership during members undertake or join a member of another social gathering; publicly prioritize the opposite get together; publicly helps the truth that voters should not vote for a candidate permitted by this celebration to any office; or who publicly supports the candidate nominated by the opposite get together, or open it. (Editor's observe: this paragraph is daring as a result of it relates on to Diamond's lengthy-time period help to Republican Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait and help for Republican James Vanderbilt over Jordan Brandman)

DPOC didn’t change its guidelines (and is in truth thought-about by CRC in another context). ) The CDP Statute tells us what a "second party" would have meant before Prime 2; The "natural" interpretation – which I reached (the comment of the editor: the other disagrees) – is that till and until DPOC followed the leadership of CDP, it was content material-oriented to the nomination (which is now a "confirmation") of the other get together as a important factor in the competition, which doesn’t not a democrat. The pure handling of a doc, without any terminology, is that no which means has been modified.

CRC Holding 1B: If the rule was unclear, I ought to have waited for DPOC

CRC claims that "Mr. Diamond cannot reasonably argue that he was unaware of any different interpretations because he had several discussions with Murdock. The CRC has no record of Mr. Diamond taking action to review his interpretation before his approval and lobbying.

Objective 1B.1: The granting of a license requiring serious ambiguity is detrimental

Note that I am not saying that the ambiguity of the rules should give people the freedom to go ahead while waiting for them not to face punishment. A person's interpretation must be credible – the CRC's statement expressly admits that I had. The principle of punishment for the accused offender, according to which the lack of clarity is sufficient to produce reliable alternative interpretations, is known as "mildness" – and again, it is one of the principles that (mostly democratic) civilian doctors have constantly defended

. asked for a formal resolution that would allow me to act on my own as regards what objective observers are considered to be the most important provincial competitions in the last 20 years – one after a nationwide scandal involving the activities of the OC District Court and Sheriff's Offices with regard to the accused civil and civil liberties, and one that I accept The candidate was a real slate with a democratic MP who accepted the Sheriff candidate (not just their similar positions and concerns) but with the support of De Par's second pair). Military Party (and Fair, Sean) Lou Correa (Editor's Note: It's Congressman), who referred to his long-standing friend of Sheriff who had violated the rights of prisoners in Miranda and where I opposed DA, hides evidence and lies to the courts. Yes, I was about not to say that the only democratic voice around would be against the protection of the sixth right of change in the first and fourth protection – not supposedly for its merit, but for personal friendship. I thought as a lawyer that this was terrible – and caused my party long-lasting damage (especially since the incumbent's probable named successor would be a white overwhelming sympathy from Huntington Beach. (Editor's note: anyone else follows this logic? although I speak only to myself, I had a duty to ask for permission to do something that is not explicitly forbidden. ", where unclear regulation may be wider than expressed, as meant, or even the permissible effect referred to as" high altitude "- due to its ambiguity and / or vagueness – civil liberty standing – ACLU standing and historically democratic status when it happens – is that i individuals haven’t any obligation to censor themselves or actions which might be unclear by regulation or rule. It rewards unclear authorized drafting. If DPOC had needed to make clear this rule, as CDP did, it might achieve this (and should) – however the principle of what’s referred to as "softness" is that you do not understand the really unclear rule towards those accused of breaking it. You repair it and use the clarified drive afterwards. I had no obligation to clarify the unclear rule earlier than action – especially contemplating that any answer I might have acquired would not have been formal and that someone who can be in favor of the chairman might simply have broken the impunity. the truth that legal professionals reject "arbitrary and capricious". This isn’t how the regulation – even at the degree of the events' inner rule – works or should work. (Imagine making an attempt to write down a Bylaw that specifically requires that folks all the time ask for permission first if multiple interpretation of the principles is feasible! It might not survive explicitly.) I used to be a pal as a result of our daughters have been 5, no democratic candidate opposed their choice to the IUSD, nor was I positive that the rule was acceptable, so I contacted the DPOC chair and was informed that I could not accept Glasse as a result of it violated the principles "No doubt, the check out out rule must be applied to journalism and not to the law.)

Objective 1B.2: Allowing some inseparable, missing approvals to help the party

I can imagine that some people may be inclined to approach expulsion rather for political reasons than for legal interpretation in terms of innovation. That's why I also deal with them. The position that a party would interpret as a rule is much better than the (shamefully weak) position it took in this past election. As I have noted, the first serious challenge for 16 tears, 20-year incumbent Ombudsman (which is widely was considered corrupt and lawful) made this the most important provincial elections in decades. For the fifth time, the Democrats did not nominate a candidate, most of whom clearly thought. (I was the fourth such candidate in 2014.) The general interest in the competition was the High and Democratic Party showed a clear interest in participating in this issue at all – despite the fact that once again in a large and successful county made national news. (Editor's note: This is definitely an opinion and not a fact)

I did my best to get our party's candidate approved and heard out loud in a party that supports him in the primary. When our party candidate – noting that I meant "permitted candidate", not just a "candidate in our social gathering", and I would say that this was important to most readers – lost and was applied to both selected candidates, he negotiated with both candidates and was able to to distinguish some extraordinary concessions for the recognition of the post-election party as "democratic rules within the administration of felony justice." But there were also reasons I did and recognize, I oppose a candidate who favored, although I mostly deal with his earlier political record as his future administration in the district court office.

What if the Democrats simply did not get any rule against partying in a race where no Democrat did Top Two – in some of our provinces? (Ex officio members can, of course, do so without the risk of leaving the country.) We could have been able to talk heavily about what was worse than the two evils. (I have no problem if I had created a candidate that I accepted as "lower than two evil.") This would have been a debate that would emphasize what the Democrats support – rather than just hiding in the hole before it was over my topic jokes in my province in similar situations.) I would welcome citizens and legitimate attacks on the candidates I favored by democratic candidates, even though I might have been afraid to speak because of the same provision because they fear that they will be regarded as helping the incumbent (which would definitely have been.) But now, the Democrats are not weaknesses that sit on the side wall, leaving them to strangle or bend (we were accused of both), but as human beings involved in the process we should be a representative of the district court and what actions we considered discriminatory I think so strongly that we would instead choose a corrupt thug. We would be proud of our idea, even if we hadn't drained. (Editor's note: If it was and it was candy and nuts, it would be Christmas every day)

The accusation in return is a lack of neutrality. I believe that I act in a biased loyalty – endangering the probable attack of political enemies

2. According to the announcement

the CRC's statement does not seem to have ignored a number of challenges presented in my challenge – largely to include Roberts rules when the hearing involves expulsion (Roberts considers the most serious sanctions and the most appropriate procedure – I therefore ask the committee to examine this a section in addition to the parts presented here, and the discussion is divided into two parts: consultation and procedural statement

CRC Holding 2A: the consultation was valid regardless of its spam, partly because I have never decided to receive an email

Statement 2A.1: This was unexpected, so it was not the usual DPOC notifications

The chairman notes that the announcement by email is in fact – but this was not a standard announcement. and check o the spam folder if they have received anything and ask for it to be sent. This was not an expected announcement, and no one knows I could ask. The notification message is such that it has specific rules for the reason, especially to ensure that the recipient does not process it like other messages. We have less than one business office company a year in the last decade, this is not a common way to require an "choose-out" function.

Statement 2A.2: Roberts Rules Are Different and Stricter Notification Clause

To be honest, I would have been pleased with the email – even on Friday before the Thanksgiving week when I had family responsibilities – if I were sent some heads-up, so I could contact DPOC if I couldn't find it. Whatever I got was inadequate. As I say in my complaint (in the part that the CRC seems to have ignored):

All references to a notice in the DPOC Rules require a written notice. It does not say what the "written" announcement is, in order that we turn to Roberts' guidelines as a filler. Roberts Rules say that the principles of local, state, and nationwide regulation – and that may require more time in CCP 1013 [for a reply]. See. Part 1: RONR pages three-4: “Negotiation meeting.” As well as, Roberts states that an e-mail notification is simply applicable if the recipient of the notification has agreed to obtain it prematurely. Page 89, Section B, Section 9, “Special Business Meetings”, “Normal Meeting”.

First observe that by some means I dropped a number of words after the highlighted part, but this should not have been an issue if the recipients read the reference. The principles to be adopted in local, state, and nationwide legislation ought to be used a minimum of by reflection – and this would include a better diploma of certainty that one has acquired it (the arrival of a licensed letter or private service by the deadline, the time wanted to answer if the service is Posted – but this was not thought-about noteworthy, and unfortunately my e-mail service redirected the message to spam. (Editor's word: Yahoo e-mail may be easily listed so it gained't go to spam even on bcc: Mr. Diamond did not take the required steps to ensure that not all get together communications go to spam, and is tough to consider that he did not obtain a call from a good friend at the least one social gathering when the announcement came out)

Objection 2A three. Sudden, this was no abnormal DPOC notifications

Vastoi n CRC's assertion, but for Roberts, the above isn’t just an issue. I’ve no obligation to examine the spam folder every two, two, and so forth. Day – DPOC was chargeable for the notification and Roberts refers to a better normal to ensure I know to look for it. Such an announcement is the group's equivalent to a course of service, relatively than a standard meeting notice: subsequently, as in the process service, the procedure should have had some increased means – a confirmed letter, personal service, or at the least a private name – to pay attention to it. It ought to be thought-about as a class with totally different (and stricter) rules designed to stop a large space that was making an attempt to organize for it during a number of days of household Thanksgiving, and hearing (which was, thankfully, finally canceled). ) Regular e mail notification is sweet; there isn’t any such notification.

Holding the CRC 2B I have eliminated some objections, because I can show that they have been made to

the CRC requires that the difficult operations are met the requirements set out under. The 'Real' regulation has rules which are just like these in many professional sports: in case you are unable to play 'gaming' due to the actions of another group, you may be launched from that shortcoming. On this case, I had no alternative to make some claims because the chairman did not know me and couldn’t report the rationale why the chairman, although I do know I have a scarcity of reminiscence as a result of a stroke, refused to let the assembly be recorded (all of the sudden solely when it was too late to ensure the recording was potential). These can’t fairly take away the CRC / CDP's jurisdiction to behave unlawfully. reminiscence shortages as a consequence of stroke. The chairman refused this request and stated that we should not have permission to report the meeting. I explained that I needed it to be saved with a view to keep the grounds of attraction. I used to be advised that this might not be essential because they take good minutes. (Observe that I did not obtain these minutes on 27 January. Or 28.1. – I discover a bit of before the assembly that the number of votes was primarily mistaken, as mentioned under.)

Resulting from disability, I’ve hassle proving exactly which objections I did – although I submitted them in writing , which was distributed earlier than and through the meeting. Nevertheless, this problem is especially on account of the fact that the chairman doesn’t permit recording, which reminds me, particularly, of opposing him and his answer above. I’ve to stop evidence from displaying that the exhaustion of cures is forgiven if I can present evidence. As well as, the next sentences contained my challenge, and I identified that I attempted to boost objections (which would be justified, those I had beforehand written – and I had an inventory and I gave them on a regular basis) – and haven’t been recognized in time. This, nevertheless, forgives me for not displaying exhaustion, together with the doctrine of "vainness".

I was ready to resist the rules when they were proposed to the body. Such a vote was never taken. When I point out this and other shortcomings, I was simply waved off and told that the rules have already been set and at any time the wear of the protest has passed. At other times I couldn't get the floor.

As I stated in my challenge, there are still further issues to consider. It could be argued that my responsibility, in accordance with the principle of emptiness, was to stand and continue shouting on a point of order and to walk forward and make a presentation of my demands. It should be remembered that my expulsion was supposed to be voted at the meeting, and even though the President's refusal to acknowledge me was supposed to be calling me shouting like a maniac, sometimes it's simply unreasonable to wait for me to do so as it is in the emptying criterion. I declare that I have fulfilled all the requirements that apply to all claims, either by presenting them (and in some cases, could not get the President to recognize the point of order and
to move the solution), and in other cases, as the Chairman of incorrectly blocked the way. (Editor's note: Telling party members to "blow up donkeys" was charming)

3. Compared to the voting margins

DPOC announces some voting requirements in its rules, but in most cases refers to "filling the gap", which tells you what to do when it is not clear what to do – primarily (only for that meeting) Roberts Rules, new revisions) and (In the last six months of a provision not intended to remind anyone, one statement that if no other margin is explicitly provided for in the Acts, the voting margin is the majority of the votes, and I refer to the debate by Jonathan Adler in the Challenge project on this intelligent debate

that these two "kuilua täyttä" -määräystä eivät ole ongelma, jos one makes one easy assumption (that also seems to be the only logical one): that the supply incorporating Roberts Rules makes its rules EXPRESSLY a part of the textual content of the Bylaws, and that the opposite “unless these Bylaws otherwise provide” is ab ackstop for something on which Roberts seems to be silent, making THOSE votes majority rule. In that case, the voting requirement for a movement to expel is a 2/3. If the reverse is true, and Roberts is the backstop for the “everything is by majority” rule, then the DPOC with that amendment overturned not only the 2/3 requirement for eradicating a member – the gravest move the physique takes – but in addition all the other voting thresholds which might be 2/three (or unanimous!) in Roberts but aren’t addressed within the Bylaws. This is able to make the DPOC just about the only parliamentary physique to do so – and additionally to have forgotten concerning the rule for your complete ten years I’ve been here (apart from the previous a number of  months) throughout which era it was duly following Roberts Rules.

There’s one good canon of authorized interpretation that ought to leads us to assume that Roberts Rules has continued to be in drive regardless of the Magical Majority Rule – and that is that the precise rule controls the overall. RONR is composed of all types of particular guidelines (in addition to some basic rules); the Magical Majority Rule is a common bludgeon that only is sensible as a last backstop rule. The CRC, in its fourth order, “encourages the DPOC to determine which motions other than those already prescribed should appropriately require a vote more than a simple majority and then consider conforming amendments to its Bylaws.”  (The excellent news, maybe, is that until the Bylaws say otherwise, for now they will amend the Bylaws by majority rule, and can vote by majority to get rid of the procedure of the Bylaws amendments having to undergo the Bylaws committee at all.  Some Bylaws these are!)

CRC takes this as a given: “As the DPOC Bylaws are silent as to the threshold for removal under the endorsement/advocacy provision, the threshold [for removal] would be a majority.”  (I promise you, I might by no means have lasted this lengthy if this have been understood to be true.)  But if the incorporation of Roberts Guidelines into the DPOC Bylaws truly does give them choice because the initial hole-filler fairly than the never-relied-upon-for-voting-requirements backstop, then the Byl aws are NOT silent on the edge for removing: they expressly say to comply with the principles expressed in Roberts Rules – like pretty much every other parliamentary assembly using them.

The alternative to taking the view that the DPOC as soon as did something so spectacularly silly as to wipe out virtually all of Roberts and then compounded this by an even more spectacular stupidity of simply forgetting about it for at the least one decade and perhaps more, and will now should compound it with a third stupidity of getting every supermajority in Roberts enshrined into its Bylaws is for the CRC to say that clearly, this “majority rule” bylaw that when had some forgotten objective was by no means meant to oust all of Roberts’s supermajority procedures and must be construed as a backstop, during which case a 2/three vote was required to remove me.

CRC then states that it doesn’t much matter because:

“The CRC further finds through the testimony submitted that while the initial voi c e vote was a majority, the roll call vote was by more than two-thirds. The CRC notes the latter reflects the final official vote and that this roll call was requested by Mr. Diamond.”

The CRC was proper based mostly on the knowledge given to them by the celebration, regardless of my own rely at the time that the vote was 31-17 for removing. However, as was verified at this past Monday’s meeting, that info was fallacious. Fairly than being exactly (not “more than,” however simply as efficient) two-thirds – 32 to 16 – the vote was certainly 31 to 17.  AD-69 delegate Dr. José Moreno, one among my closest allies inside the physique, was recorded as voting to take away me. Once I lastly acquired the official roll call vote – greater than two months after the vote occurred and regardless of my looking for it – I checked it, noted the unlikely discrepancy, and referred to as him up to say that even if he’d voted me out we have been still pals. He advised me that he had not voted to remove me. I then famous that Jim Moreno (not an ally) had voted to take away me, and that that would have easily led to the misrecording of his vote. José had the vote corrected at Monday’s assembly, and the official margin is 31-17. There’s no escaping the necessity to vote on whether or not DPOC did in truth eviscerate Roberts Rules and now should re-incorporate it, despite its present incorporation (Editor’s notice: directions provided by the chair was a merely majority was required to remove Diamond).

Once more, the notion that this provision had some unique objective that received mangled and forgotten is way, far, much more possible than the reason that the CRC accept as given.

four. Incapacity Points

I have said that my cognitive disability – making use of to memory and some comprehension of instructions and instructions, and my means to arrange things, but to not my analytical talents – made it troublesome for me to comply with the proceedings in real time, to reconstruct them, to get within the objections I needed to if I used to be being intentionally or in any other case bamboozled, and to report on precisely what I did. I consider that this was intentional and meant to reap the benefits of my disability. Read my challenge for extra. That ought to suffice to protect that difficulty for attraction. (Editor’s notice: If all this is true, how can Mr. Diamond defend his possession of a regulation license?  Individuals who endure strokes typically lose their capability to drive and their driver’s license.  If he lacks the mental capacity to apply regulation, shouldn’t the State Bar remove his regulation license?)

# # #

In order that’s that. Let’s say Diamond prevails. I’ll make a motion to take away him from DPOC Central Committee based mostly on his November 5, 2018 blog submit under and his subsequent condemnation of the get together’s endorsed candidate for Anaheim District 2.  That link is under, with a minimize and paste of the copy (display grabs are already had). It’s a confession of types and an admission he is aware of he’s violated get together rules.

2018 Vote #6 – Anaheim Council: Dr. Moreno and Mr. Brandman

 District 2

That is the place I disobey the orders of the DPOC; that is my ticket to the a trial within the dock. I gained’t mince words: Jordan Brandman shouldn’t get your vote for this district. Does that mean that Democrats gained’t have the ability to get a Council majority, even if Ashleigh Aitken and Jose Moreno and Grant Henninger win? Sure, it does. But there are worse issues than not having a majority — and one in every of them is being an solely nominal majority — and having to simply accept duty for all that occurs — while being a practical minority because one among your members is on the mistaken aspect, in order that the incorrect issues occur.

Let’s presume that Ashleigh wins the Mayor’s race, that Dr. Moreno beats that nasty SOB Mitch Caldwell, and that Grant Henninger by some means resists being in thrall to Disney. She wants four individuals to make coverage. In most areas related to the Resort, she might put collectively a coalition with Moreno, Denise Barnes, and … who else? Not Lucille Kring or Steve Faessel. She would wish to select off both Jordan or Grant — but I feel that they might both ally with Kring and Faessel. (Each, actually, would strengthen the desire of the other to do so.)  Ashleigh would develop into the same stifled and helpless chief that Tom Tait was in the first six years of his service as Mayor.

Jordan has by no means even promised not to do that. The one promise that I might get him to make in the DPOC endorsement process was that he would not endorse Kris Murray for Supervisor if he was endorsed — and even then he parsed his reply. The moment I noticed that I couldn’t help Jordan was the moment when an ally of his stated that if Vern and I didn’t stop choosing at Jordan, he would be happy to disregard the promises he made to the DPOC. That rang true. However that isn’t how guarantees work! Jordan did not promise to “behave” solely as long as no one criticized him; he promised to behave, period. If even his buddies assume that he can be on the lookout for a chance to renege on his guarantees — how might I probably put belief in him?

Provided that Duane Roberts isn’t going to win this seat — and yeah, it’s a given — and that none of the minor candidates will make a dent, that signifies that the only various is James Vanderbilt. Nicely, might Ashleigh work nicely as Mayor with Vanderbilt? Completely: in reality, for my part Vanderbilt would turn out to be Ashleigh’s staunchest ally as Mayor, because they’re each thoughtful, not that ideological, and gained’t be punitive in the direction of Disney and Arte Moreno while additionally not being inclined to let them decide the town’s pockets.

So take a look at the precise line-up on the Council with Ashleigh as Mayor, with the Disney aspect in inexperienced and the reformers in purple, with unknowns — including (laughably however for the sake of argument, Brandman) in grey:

Mayor: Aitken (by assumption, on this state of affairs)
1: Barnes
2: Brandman or Vanderbilt
3: hopefully Moreno, hopefully not Caldwell, in all probability not the Tait Republican Robert Nelson.
four: Kring
5: Faessel
6: Henninger or Disney Republican O’Neil or Tait Republican Gaby

If she needs to face as much as the people who have accused her of supporting baby molesters — oh, and additionally for the great of the town — she has only one safe vote, that of Barnes. If Moreno wins, she needs another vote — and for those who take a look at the roster it’s clear that doe the subsequent two years that’s going to be a Republican. (If Caldwell wins, she’d need Gaby AND Vanderbilt to win.)  Otherwise, just as when Kris Murray and Jordan Brandman rode roughshod over Tait, she’d be a hostage tied to her own stagecoach.

I’m going to presume for now that Moreno wins. If Vanderbilt additionally wins, you have got the Tait coalition intact for an additional two years, with a potential pickup within the District 6 race. But if Brandman wins, then it all depends upon who wins District 6.  If it’s O’Neil, all is misplaced. If it’s Gaby, Ashleigh still has a working “Tait” majority, with Gaby taking up the position of Vanderbilt. However what occurs if it’s Henninger?

Based mostly on the colours I used above, you’ve got a three-2-2 cut up: Ashleigh, Barnes, and Moreno as reformers, Kring and Faessel as Disney thralls —  and Brandman and Henninger as supposed uncommitteds.

Properly, as positive as 2+2=four, does anybody actually assume that in that state of affairs Brandman plays a fourth or fifth wheel to Ashleigh, Barnes, and his mortal enemy Moreno?

He does what he and Murray did underneath Tait — puts together a four-vote coalition that may on this case have its energy limited solely by Steve Faessel’s sense of decency. After which Ashleigh (or Cynthia!) has a miserable two years as Mayor, until the state of affairs could be modified. Or perhaps a miserable 4, 6, or 8.  (Ask Tait about being in that spot.

If you already know Jordan Brandman, you already know that the prospect of his not seizing power is approximate zero.  He has a Trumpian love for dominating his political enemies and taunting them for his or her lack of energy.

And the worst part is that the following insurance policies occur with a Democrat as Mayor and with two Democrats within the 4-individual governing coalition (together with a lady and a Latino Dem in the minority.)

NO THANKS!  This is able to destroy the Democratic Get together in Anaheim.  The insurance policies that the Brandman-Caldwell-Kring-and-Faessel coalition (with or with out Henninger) would help can be pro-repression, professional-borrowing money to be paid again for many years in change for campaign money as we speak, and basically anti-Latino.  Whenever you look back at how Tait’s ineffectual vote to make the Mickey & Buddies Parking Lot deal unanimous is STILL trotted out commonly by anonymous commenters, you possibly can imag ine that the 2019-2020 betrayals of the City can be put on the Democrats’ tab for the remainder of the century. What does Jordan care? His constituency is Disney and the Constructing Trades, not the social gathering.

Not just reformers, but in addition DEMOCRATS, can’t danger Jordan Brandman being elected in District 2.  If DPOC members actually understood Anaheim politics — and Jordan Brandman — all the folksy sucking up on the earth wouldn’t have gotten them to endorse him.