TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…

“State of Jefferson” Lawsuit May Generate FAR MORE Than the Plaintiffs Ask For…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

When California’s liberal Democrat legislative majority passed infamous Senate Bill #277 mandating seventy-four (74) “Made-in-China” vaccines as a requirement for California’s children to attend Public or Private schools no one suspected that that act would act as the catalyst to bring down the Democratic Party both nationwide and in California – but it did.  And it is…

Today, California itself is on the chopping block.  NORMAL PEOPLE are taking control away from the liberal Democrats.  Here today I will tell you how ONE very coherent group has identified the problem and is taking action to solve it very effectively.

There is a lot here to read – but the problem in California has been clearly identified.  Read it all – for solution is on its way.

Let’s Begin…

Twenty-one of California’s 58 Counties OFFICIALLY want OUT of California – as far away from the California liberal Democrat’s form of Communist-Socialism as they can get – and they have a VERY GOOD PLAN to accomplish their goals.

They have activated the first step – a Federal Lawsuit – and it is right on target…

On May 8th of this year (2017) a group calling itself Citizens For Fair Representation, along with specific individuals, filed a Federal Court action in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) claiming to the Court that the State of California has intentionally abridged the concept of government of “We the People” turning California government into an “oligarchy inconsistent with representative self-governance.”

The suit claims that the “Oligarchy” controls the State of California by maintaining neglect… 

From the lawsuit’s introduction:

“This neglect of “We the People” as the organic basis for this Nation’s self-governance stems from the cap the California government placed on the number of Senators (limited to 40) and Assembly Members (limited to 80) in 1862, when the population of the State was less 420,000 people. This arbitrary cap has created an oligarchy inconsistent with representative self-governance because the same number of legislators (120 total) now attempts to represent California’s present population of nearly forty MILLION (40,000,000) people. By any metric, this is impossible; 120 legislators cannot possibly represent forty (40) MILLION people in any effective, equitable and meaningful manner as contemplated by the United States Constitution and Amendments thereto.

Since the end of the Civil War the United States has consistently strengthened its commitment to a representative form of self-governance by ratification of Constitutional Amendments and treaties designed to promote the people’s participation in governing at both the National and State levels. California’s refusal to increase its levels of legislative representation to reflect its exponential population growth is both arbitrary and unconstitutional.

As a consequence, the premise of the People’s right to participate in meaningful self-governance has been abandoned. California elections are effectively “purchased” by candidates who are in the service of the two major parties and no longer represent the people.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to return their representation to those principles contemplated by the founders for a representative republic, or in the alternative to sanction California for its brazen subjugation of the people’s right to govern themselves.”

You can read a copy of the entire lawsuit here.

The Lawsuit DID NOT Specifically Name the Members of the Oligarchy YET…

But, someone else has – The California Policy Center.  They call it California’s “Deep State.”  They say in an article by Ed Ring titled:

California’s Public Sector Union “Deep State”

“In the above diagram, at the center of it all are Public Unions. Immediately adjacent to them are the entities where they exercise the most influence, if not outright control – public education, state and local politicians and bureaucrats, and political consultants. Almost, but not entirely co-equal to these public unions are the corporate special interests, businesses that either depend directly on government contracts and subsidies for their prosperity, or businesses that depend heavily on a favorable legislative environment to survive.

Public sector unions in California collect and spend over $1.0 billion per year in dues. To the extent this money doesn’t flow directly into the pockets of politicians, political consultants and lobbyists, it goes to public relations firms, law firms, and academic institutions to engage in non-political public education. This soft money is heavily supplemented by funds coming from public entities and liberal oligarchs who support the same political agenda as the public unions.

The primary goal of the public sector union deep state is bigger government. Public sector unions thrive and grow by increasing their membership and increasing their dues revenue. This means more government programs is their first priority, while the value and benefit of government programs is a secondary priority. As a result, those elites that benefit from bigger government become junior partners to the public unions.

For example, public unions demand excessive pay, benefits and work rules that increase headcount. The impact this has on the financial sector is obvious. The increased cost of government creates budget deficits, which spells opportunities for bond underwriters. Pension formula enhancements create more business for pension funds and the powerful financial special interests who are clients of the pension systems.

How the public union deep state impacts the rest of the business sector is not quite as obvious, but equally detrimental to the interests of ordinary Californians. At the core of this is the synergy between the “green” lobby and the government unions. The green lobby opposes development of infrastructure on principle, the government unions want those funds for their pay and benefits. The business sector adapts to this reality, especially those businesses that benefit from politically contrived, artificial scarcity.

This would include public utilities, who operate on fixed profit percentages and therefore only make more money if they charge more expensive prices per unit – hence their alliance with the renewable energy industry. Developers who seek government grants for subsidized “low income” housing justify their appeals based on the unaffordable prices for homes and rentals. Proponents of high-speed rail and light rail benefit from the neglect of roads and freeways. Silicon Valley “green” entrepreneurs sell expensive internet enabled appliances that purportedly save the planet by consuming marginally less electricity and water.

Meanwhile, the teachers union and their cohorts on the faculties of public universities promote identity politics as the most compelling moral preoccupation a conscientious young idealist can possibly embrace. In their orbit, the grievance industry, the multi-lingual industry, the campus and community organizers and green activists all find a welcome home, and all of this provides a useful distraction from the reality: California’s public sector union deep state has elevated the cost-of-living to punitive levels in order to consolidate their own power and wealth.

The next time you hear the phrase “deep state,” know that it is alive and well. Right here in sunny California.”

The Bottom Line Here is Simple…

The intent of this lawsuit is to break the power of the oligarchs by forcing true representation on California – and there are options.

Is there reality here?  Oh yeah…

If, for instance, the federal court forced California to develop a ratio of elected officials to population based on a comparison to North Dakota (One Senator to 16,105 people, and One Assemblyman to 8,052 people)  then California (One Senator to 1,000,000 people, and One Assemblyman to 500,000 people) would be forced to increase State Senator Districts from 40 to 2,484.  Assembly Districts would have to be increased from 80 to 4,968.

Just think how big a room they’d need just for ONE committee meeting.

You can see how ALL other States match up to California by looking at the chart here.  As you will see, the liberal Democrats in California had figured out how to completely eliminate a Democracy – and they did it.  The Obama-Nation would be proud…

The Lawsuit’s “Prayer” For Relief…

From the lawsuit itself comes the final words.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court as follows:

1. The assigned trial Judge as soon as practicably possible alert the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to convene a district court of three judges as required by 28 U.S.C. 2284(1).

2. Declare the existing apportionment and representative ratio of California’s legislative districts impair plaintiff’s’ right to participate in self-governance and abridge the value of individual plaintiffs’ votes as well as impairs their first Amendment rights.

3. Enter a permanent injunction and, if necessary, a preliminary injunction establishing statewide legislative districts in California in accordance with such plans as plaintiffs will submit to the Court; and enjoin the growth of the Representative Districts. This plan should include the creation of at least one Native American majority district.

4. Enter a permanent injunction and, if necessary, a preliminary injunction establishing a moratorium on the hiring of legislative assistants, who perform legislative functions.

5. Appoint a Special Master for determinations of population data for the Court to use.

6. Enter a decree sanctioning California pursuant U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, § 2.

7. Award plaintiffs’ attorney fees and reasonable costs incurred in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and other similar purposed statutes relevant to this action.

8. Order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

So, What’s This “TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…” stuff?

28 U.S.C. 2284(1) is an interesting section of US law.  It says:

(a)  A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.
(b)In any action required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges under subsection (a) of this section, the composition and procedure of the court shall be as follows:
(1) Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge. The judges so designated, and the judge to whom the request was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.
(2) If the action is against a State, or officer or agency thereof, at least five days’ notice of hearing of the action shall be given by registered or certified mail to the Governor and attorney general of the State.
(3) A single judge may conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except as provided in this subsection. He may grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding, based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted, which order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the district court of three judges of an application for a preliminary injunction. A single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on the merits. Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the full court at any time before final judgment.
 
This provides for a very unique situation.  It eliminates the State of California’s ability to STALL the proceedings, AND, any Appeal of this three-judge Court’s decision would GO DIRECTLY TO THE US SUPREME COURT.   In short, California is screwed.

With this Three-Judge Panel It Would Be Possible For Other Groups to File Friend-Of-The-Court (Amicus) Briefs…

So, why not ask the panel to divide up California not into just TWO (Jefferson and California) States, but FOUR – each having their own specific interests?

If we just let the State of Jefferson go on its own, we here in the rest of California would STILL have a similar problem.  So, let’s make this simple.

The FOUR States:

Jefferson – on the North – made up of 21 counties.  The people there are the kind you want as neighbors.

California – made up of the long-suffering of ALL the areas outside of the liberal San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles complex.

Sodom – made up of the San Francisco Bay Area.  The name is self-explanatory.

Gomorrah – made up of the Los Angeles complex, which includes Hollywood…

To each his own.

Stay tuned…

Opinion by “Deplorable Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

 

14 thoughts on “TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…”

  1. I’d love to think this is a good thing, but I have major concerns. Let’s say California increases the number of congressional representatives … won’t that just make the state an even bigger prize during election years? I mean, Hitlary spent MOST of her time and money wooing California, and in fact thought the white house was HERS based on the outcome of the votes in CA. Most of the votes cast fraudulently were in California.
    How is this possible division of the state going to ensure fair representation for the downtrodden masses of the “Golden State” – and not just create a bigger stick for the fascists to beat the rest of the country with?

  2. Sounds interesting & maybe hopeful. I agree that we don’t have enough representation, but I wonder if we could end up with too much or if it could create a bigger mess. I am not happy with our current system. I don’t know that I want to see the state broken up though. Lots to think about. Thanks

  3. I’m curious what will happen to those who are already receiving retirement benefits from the state of California through Calpers. I’m one of those people but I do support the SOJ.

  4. Tia,

    This law suit is about state representation, not federal. It would not increase the number of reps in US Congress, it would increase the number of reps in the CA state legislature.

  5. It would not increase the Congressional delegation. It woukd affect the state legislature only.

    However, the judges can’t divide the state up due to Article 4 Section 3.

  6. Interesting. Dramatically increasing the number of legislators would make it much harder to buy a majority, so that would be a good thing. It would also open up the process to outsiders who are not already bought; in fact, would pretty much require that. So it this happens, it will be a step in the right direction.

  7. @ Wes Hawkins: CalPERS is actually a worldwide entity, so you can live in a different state and even a different COUNTRY and still collect CalPERS. The fact that it is a “California” Retirement doesn’t mean anything once you are retired.

  8. Southern Oregon has the same or similar problem…Portland, Salem and Eugene currently runs the state. Liberal Democrats have pushed us to the breaking point in terms of being a “Sanctuary welfare state” It’s criminal what our so called leadership is doing…

  9. @Wes Hawkins: this problem was settled by a law suit many moons ago because the state was taking out taxes from retired law and fire personnel because they live in different states. The courts ruled California could not tax a non citizen income taxes, but were required to process their retirement checks anyway.

  10. Not only is this good for California, it’s also good for the nation. It should start a movement in other states to follow suit and if we can get a Convention of States we can change the Constitution to allow for more representation in the House and Senate; 435/50 is not enough for 300,000,000 people! These moves would re-establish government by the people, not the “Establishment”. It will make running for office less expensive in smaller areas. More representation will re-balance the area of California and hopefully the nation.

  11. Legislators were the primary reason for checks and balances in state and federal government.Furthermore, with proper representation according to population,it would have been fairly simple to prevent the politician from being bought off by special interest including other like minded politicians.Had people been represented according to area populations,it would have been very difficult for those legislators to not reveal their special interest!Right now at this very moment we have Mr. Chiang in Sacramento paying back multi-millions to special interest groups who financially supported his election to state public office in the last state run elections! Evidence abounds,and the government of California is not about to remove this fellow socialist,democrat from office anytime soon.

  12. Article 1, Section 2 United States Constitution says representation will not exceed 1 for every 30,000. George Washington wanted that in there specifically. We have the cure for national and California representation. It’s already the law of the land. But We The People have not demanded it be enforced.

  13. I think it would make more sense for central California counties, Inyo, Mono, Tulare, Kings, Kern, Fresno and maybe Madera, all vote to become part of Nevada ( NO state income tax woo hoo !) We leave and take our water with us. Get the Feds to approve a simple lot line adjustment.

  14. The Tri-Valley area of Alameda County is by most considered to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area, yet because of it’s proximity to the Central Valley is more conservative. It’s a weird situation. I guess we could petition to be included in California if it breaks up as described in this article…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *