TRUMP’S US Supreme Court Will Preside Over the Breakup of California…
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… http://bolenreport.com/trumps-us-supreme-court-will-preside-breakup-california/
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… http://bolenreport.com/trumps-us-supreme-court-will-preside-breakup-california/
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
This article is an extreme SCREED of pure Horse Shit!
Is this kind of thing typical of this site?
Yes. The door is over there .
Yes. The door is over there .
Don't let it hit ya where the good lord split ya.
Is this kind of thing typical of this site?
Only of this particular poster. Sad, huh?
Sad, huh?
Yes, I will have to try harder to avoid these kinds of articles.
I like being able to hover over an article's title to see who seeded it on NV. I miss that here.
Secession is a clear right.
The whole breaking up CA into 2 states is nothing but a pipe dream. Not even half the counties in CA support such an absurd idea. But hey, the one's that do can keep dreaming.
I agree. It's never going to happen, but on the other hand it does give him a hobby and keeps him off from the streets at night. Sort of like after school basketball programs.
May I interject one little fact in here? Northern California has water and southern California does not. The entire state must deal with a water budget that is heavily weighed toward one end of the state. And it takes ALL of the state's resources to meet the water needs of the entire state. The transfer of water supplies from one end to the other is the result.
I doubt that southern California is going to sit idly by and watch the northern half make off with their water supplies.
Already, water is piped from one watershed into the watershed next door, and on down the line to meet the needs of the thirsty southern counties. It requires a state-wide authority to do that efficiently and well.
I just can't see the two splitting up-- if only because of the water supplies, or lack thereof.