AgdaPkt 2021.02.22 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

agreement, in some a statute, in some these overlap (S.F. Port, San Mateo Harbor District, etc.) The holding is not only a constitutional (charter) crisis in Redwood City, it is of potentially disastrous reach statewide. Although it is not "published" it is, as you know, always available by search, and if you look at even Supreme Court practice (CA) and the Horvitz and Levy appellate specialist page, unpublished opinions are often (very often) used by courts for guidance and information. This one is especially terrible and personally defamatory to me as well (misleading, even if allowable as in a public proceeding). Quite simply, the 1DCA Dist. 2 got it so wrong. I don't think the AG and SLC even "want" this result. I do not think Mr Tsukamaki advanced it, I would have to go back and check the filings. The other parties advanced it, but the SLC and AG did not tell the court, no, that's not what the PRC says at all). This is a basic and fundamental, and elementary, concept of agency law, that if any party/entity that HAS jurisdiction (whether council or Port, as the case may be, at any given time) seeks to delegate or contract/subcontract with respect to any fiduciary duty, it must oversee it. This is agency 101. Important to note is to really read the charter. It was adopted by the people (not the city as Justice Kline got wrong and dead gave away his statist approach), in 1937, before any grant. The Port is defined in the charter as "Redwood City". Just like SLC, it is the "State of CA" (SLC is), and the Port sues and is sued as Redwood City ex rel. the Port Dept. and the SLC is The state of CA "ex rel" the SLC, or BCDC etc. as the case may be. I don't even think Judge Miram feels he made this incredibly jaded / cynical or result -oriented holding. Judge Miram, in his initial tentative ruling before the very first OSC for preliminary injunction in this case, in March of 2017, under Gary Redenbacher, put a laundry list bucket of 8 reasons why the was denying OSC. This was in it, under the urging of Hannig/Redwood City before SLC or AG was even in the case. However Judge Miram reversed himself on nearly all 8 of the bucket list reasons. Further, on the second round of Demurrer, he denied the City's demurrer, saying it was a triable issue of fact whether council or Port had jurisdiction. In a very key aspect, the City (both Council and Port) and the People, in adopting the Charter, were well aware of any general applicability to not "co trustee". The charter says only the council OR the Port, at any given time, has jurisdiction over any portion, or part or parcel of "Port Area", which is defined as all of Redwood City under water AND the upland lot/parcel. This was intentional. There are provision for passing jurisdiction back and forth, by formal, official action - resolution and/or ordinance.