by Protect Initiatives
Sunday, May. 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM
A lawsuit to ensure that state laws, especially the ones brought about by initiatives, will be defended in good faith, Goodnis v. Office of the Attorney General (Harris), has been filed in the Supreme Court of California. The court is asked to compel the state officials whose duty is to defend state laws, to do so in good faith, or officially select one or more alternate defendants to represent the state in defending the state's marriage laws. The court has also been asked to remove the restrictions they placed on a marriage law brought about by Proposition 22 of 2000. For more information please visit [ http://ProtectInitiatives.com/ ].
The Supreme Court of California has proclaimed to recognize their duty to “jealously guard” our initiative powers.
A couple of citizens of California, Dhun May and Aouie Goodnis, have filed a lawsuit against the attorney general and governor of California in the Supreme Court of California, Goodnis v. Office of the Attorney General (Harris). Plaintiffs allege that by continuing to fail to provide for the legal defense of state laws brought about by initiatives in good faith, the defendants have unconstitutionally harmed the political power of the people, breached our trust, abused discretionary powers, caused voter suppression, and violated due process protections, free speech protections, equal protection principles and the principle of separation of the judicial, legislative and executive powers.
One of two main remedies sought is to officially select an alternate defendant to defend a state law on behalf of the state in good faith. The manner of selection is to address some of the concerns expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry in June 2013. This would enable the state to seek relief from the questionable federal district court ruling which restricted Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution. The other main remedy is to remove the restriction placed upon California Family Code Section 308.5 by the Supreme Court of California back in June of 2008, on the grounds that the facts have since changed. The text of that code reads as follows. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It was introduced by Proposition 22 of 2000 and the wording is identical to that of Article 1, Sec 7.5 of the California Constitution, which was brought about by Proposition 8 of 2008.
The court has been asked to declare that the California Constitution requires the state to provide for the legal defense of state laws in good faith, especially the ones brought about by initiatives. Also, several related censures of the governor and attorney general are sought. Any continued unconstitutional course of action by the attorney general should result in the attorney general's disbarment.
We hope that, unlike the state's attorney general and governor who made a mockery of democracy and unconstitutionally undermined our political power, the court will carry out its duty in good faith by "jealously guarding" our initiative powers.
This is a comment system called babcom, which is a decentralized, anonymous, encrypted, troll-resistant, comment system
that runs atop Freenet. These comments are not stored on this IMC server - they exist in the Freenet cloud, and you
must be running Freenet and Sone to see the comments. Install Freenet and try it out.
⚙ Babcom is trying to load the comments ⚙
This textbox will disappear when the comments have been loaded.
If the box below shows an error-page, you need to install Freenet with the Sone-Plugin or set the node-path to your freenet node and click the Reload Comments button (or return).
If you see something like Invalid key: java.net.MalformedURLException: There is no @ in that URI! (Sone/search.html), you need to setup Sone and the Web of Trust
Note: To make a comment which isn’t a reply visible to others here, include the red link below somewhere in the comment text.