Mar 23, 2015

Judge in Egger vs Board of Supervisors tells Janelle to make her political position known,, seek remedy in legislature and points out legal failures

Visiting Judge Arnold Rosenfield heard arguments by County Counsel and Janelle Egger, who is representing herself, regarding her lawsuit against the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.

He will issue a written  ruling and has 90 days to do so. County Counsel Davina Smith presented arguments in court today. Ms. Anne Nguyen was also present. Three supporters including Carol Connors and two Occupy members were in court to support Egger.

The Judge was extremely patient with Ms. Egger who was defensive at times, not able to articulate her position and having difficulty legally supporting her arguments.

Janelle argued with the Judge on law and refused to follow certain legal procedures and suggestions  when cornered in court and when the Judge was trying to help strengthen her case. If it were not for his questions, Janelle's presentation would have been even more confusing.

Before each party presented their legal arguments, Judge Rosenfield summarized both party positions. "We are here today because of a writvof mandate filed by Ms. Egger alleging that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors have not been abiding by the Brown Act regarding certain business."

"The Court read the pleadings," said Judge Rosenfield. "I did not have time to read every attachment. " Looking at Janelle, he said, "It was very confusing by your verbage. The Court's understanding is that you are challenging conduct of certain committees being covered by the Brown Act. There is a failure on your part to file a cease and desist" on the Board of Supervisors. The Human Rights Commission should be a separate party to this legislative action."

There were objections filed by County Counsel to late pleadings by Janelle and the Judge had not received everything by email but he had the complete file to review before hearing.

Ms. Smith used an example of a claim by Janelle to illustrate that there had been no violation of the Brown Act. She cited codes. "The Agenda Review Meeting is not a legislative body, nor is it a meeting. It is a housekeeping meeting." Another example was where Janelle claimed an item was not on the agenda, it was put on later. Ms. Smith said sometimes this happens due to scheduling. She said case laws allows Board of Supervisors to set the agenda. Public comment allows any member of the public to inquire about any item. Referring to a April 1, 2014 meeting where anad hoc committee was formed with Supervisor Rex Bohn and Supervisor Mark Lovelace directing them to work with staff, again no violation of the Brown Act occurred because there is an exception where government can communicate with staff and Ms.Smith cited that code. "To speak staff, you don't need to post an agenda."

Ms. Smith went example by example showing how some of the exhibits filed did not match Janelle's assertions. There were codes and legal proceduresnot followed. The County asked for the lawsuit to be "dismissed  unless CHIP or the Human Rights Committee are indispensable parties. They are separate legislative bodies with their own internal policies and minutes." Janelle is asking the Court to make HRC comply and according to County Counsel "this is a fundamental flaw that needs to be remedied. How does the Court reach out to the Human Rights Committee?"

"There are no legal conclusions and factual conclusions and not enough legal facts to support. Ms. Egger cites dictionary, not statutes."

The Judge after hearing from County Counsel said, "As I read this, the question that came up for me is what is the goal other than being in Court? This is more of a practical problem than a legal problem."

Janelle's answers to the Court were often not directly responding to questions. The Judge pointed out to Janelle that "it was not a violation if the Board picks up certain recommendations and all of them."

When the Judge tried to tell Janelle that she needed to name the the organizations as respondent. Janelle said, "I wouldn't feel right doing it." The Judge said, "That is not a legal argument." Then Janelle said, "I request you do it, not me." The Judge said, "That is not my responsibility."

She argued with the Judge about the law and who needs to be names as a respondent. She argued that she did not need to provide a cease and desist letter.

Civil cases are complex. Trying to cover a court case where the petitioner is looking up law and trying to represent herself from the internet and not willing to admit that a political agenda does not make a lawsuit.

Highlights of Judge's remarks to County Counsel and Janelle.

Court to Ms. Smith: "You might be arguing a successful summary judgement motion."

Court to Janelle: "As I read this, the question that came up for me is what is the goal other than being in court? This is more a practical problem than legal problem."

Court to Janelle regarding her goal: "Isn't the remedy to make your political position known?"



3 comments:

  1. John, I was the only member of the Eureka Occupy group there today. I met Gay during Occupy, she has been standing most Saturdays against war and for peace for many, many years. I met her during Occupy. Carol and I have been friends for years, even when we supported different local candidates. My wonderful son was the third person, but you must have him confused with someone else because he was not part of Occupy.
    Thanks for covering the hearing. I have no idea how Judge Rosenfield will rule, but I appreciate his frank and thorough questioning.
    Were you aware that the Board filed a Demurrer, not a Request for Summary Judgement, and today's hearing was for oral arguments? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for clariifying Janelle. As for two other members of Occupy, that is what either you or Carol said. Could be that the inferen e got confusing while we were waiting. I base my post on what occurred today on what happened in Court not what you think the hearing was about. Nowhere did I say that today's hearing was about summary judgment. That was a quote. I think you were confused as to what all was being discussed today. Oral arguments on several documents were discussed today including the dismissal. In any case, we will find out soon if this lawsuit meets legal standards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The information I provided regarding my son and Gay was a correction.

    The information re the purpose of the hearing was clarifying information to put the quoted statement to Ms. Smith into context.

    Regarding the judge's questioning; have you ever heard the term "devil's advocate"?

    The internet is a wonderful tool; so is the Law Library.

    I am familiar with the documents, even the "Objections" the Board's attorney mentioned at the beginning of the hearing. We need to wait to see if there will be a dismissal.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.