Memorandum of Points of Authority in Support of Plaintiffs Motion Asserting Constitutional Question To State Statutes 2-20-14 Ok Site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael McGrath in Pro Se 415 Summerhill Ter. Alpine, CA 91901 619-445-7418 Mmhd911@gmail.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF | | | CALIFORNIA | | ACCUSER: Michael McGrath | | Plaintiff, | | vs. | HOME DEPOT USA., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Jim Hopper -Assistant Manager for The Home Depot Fairmont store SD, Armando Peralta Store Manager for The Home Depot Genesee store SD, for The Home Depot Genesee store SD, and does 5 through 99, inclusive, Defendants JUDGE: DATE: Time: Brian Korhummel - Assistant Manager DEPT.: Gonzalo P. Curiel April 11, 2014 1:30 p.m. 2D Case No. 14-CV0071 GPC JM San Diego Superior Court Case No.: 37- 2013 - 00078268 - CU - BT - CTL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION ASSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION TO STATE STATUTES
Action Filed: December 4, 2013 Removed: January 7, 2014 Trial Date: None set
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ASSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONTO STATE STATUTES. 1 14-cv-0071-GPC-JMA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE(S) NOTICE TO COURT: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION TO STATE STATUTES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS ....1 ASSERTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTES. .1, 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ... 3 I. INTRODUCTION .. 4
II. QUESTION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 12 13 14 15
REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES .. 5, 6 III. BACKGROUND. ..... .. 6, 7 CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 7, 8
IV. PROPOSITION 64 ARGUMENTS .... .. 8, 9, 10, 11 V. PROPOSITION 64 STATUTORY PROVISION AMENDMENT INTENTIONS ........ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 VI. EXCERPTS FROM PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ..... 17, 18 VII. QUESTION SUMMARIZATION ...... 18, 19
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ASSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONTO STATE STATUTES. 2 14-cv-0071-GPC-JMA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Statutes 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1 Constitutional Question to Statutes ...... 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1 (a)(1) Filing Notice of Constitutional Questions . 4 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1(B) A State Statute is Questioned ... 4, 5 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1(2)..2, 5 Serve Notice and Papers to State Attorney General ....... 1, 2, 6, 7 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1(b) Certification by the Court.......1, 2, 4, 6 28 U.S.C. 2403, Rule 5.1((c) Intervention.....19 California Business and Professional U.C.L Code 17200 et seq. 17204 and 17500......4, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 Other Authorities California State Constitution .......8, 9,10, 11,13 California State Constitution Article 1. Declaration of Rights Section ... 1, 9, 11 California State Constitution Article 1 Section 3. (a) ... 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 California State Constitution Article 1 Section 3 (2) .. 4, 5, 6, 8 California State Constitution Article 1 Section 3. (4) .... 6, 5, 7, 10 California State Constitution Article 1 Section 3. (16) 4, 8, 7, 10 Unruh Civil Rights Act California Civil Code 51........ 2, 8 California Proposition 64 Voter Initiative 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 California Fire Codes . 13 14, 17 Cal OSHA Safety .... 13,14,15,16,17 California Building Codes .. 12, 13 California Health and Safety Codes ... 12, 13 Page(s) Hill vs National College Athletic Assn 7 Cal.4th 1, (1994,) .... 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff Michael McGrath, in Pro Se, respectfully submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiffs motion asserting Constitutional Challenge to State Statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403 Rule 5.1(a)(1)(B) regarding Plaintiffs questioning of State Statute in Plaintiffs SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and Rule 5.1(b) Certification by the Court. INTRODUCTION I. Plaintiff asserted a constitutional challenge to state statutes in plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint on pages 124 and 125, in paragraphs 358 -361 caption titled: UNCONDITIONAL STATUTORY LAW filed with the court. Plaintiff questions the constitutionality of Californias Proposition 64 voter initiative that amends the language of the Statute under California Business and Professional Code Laws (UCL). Plaintiff asserts in his complaint a constitutionality question of Proposition 64s amended statutory language of the UCL 17200 et seq. 17204 and 17500 that now trespasses upon plaintiffs Inalienable Civil Right granted under California State Constitution Article 1. Section 1. Declaration of Rights, among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy, and other civil rights under California State Constitution Section 3.(a),(2),(4) (16). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C 5.1 (2) serves the notice and papers on the Attorney General for the State of California in that a State statute is questioned (Constitutional Challenge to a Statute). Plaintiff will serve this notice to the Attorney General for the State of California by certified U.S. mail and include documents filed with this Court including Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs; NOTICE TO COURT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTE requesting this court to certify that a statute has been questioned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
II.
Plaintiff now asserts these Questions to the Attorney General for the State of California regarding the Constitutionality of State Statutes: Is Proposition 64, voter approved initiative, that amended the Statutory language under Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL) so narrowly construed as to deny Plaintiff in Pro per due process and equal protection under the law regarding his Inalienable Civil Rights to access the court for redress of grievances for alleged Unfair, Unlawful and Fraudulent business practices by defendants under the UCL for the necessity and interest of protecting and defending constitutional rights, among them several Inalienable rights granted under the California State Constitution Article 1 Declaration of Rights that grant all citizens the rights, among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy and also in defense of other civil rights under California State Constitution (Section 3.(a),(.2),(4) and (16) ) that as applied to California Proposition 64 amended language to the ULC appear to be unconstitutional on its face, as applied, and plaintiff invokes presumption of severability and plaintiff also invokes additional questions regarding the language of Proposition 64 voter initiative statutory language that amended and changed UCL and amended statutes to be Factually Challenged and invalid toto?
(1) Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. 2403 Rule 5.1(B),(2) Constitutional Challenge to a Statute: Plaintiff in Pro Se now serves a Notice of a Constitutional Challenge to a statute and requests a decision on the merits and the need for intervention by the State Attorney General as to the constitutionality of the statute that places restrictions and imposes additional barriers that intrude and trespass upon plaintiff in Pro Se Inalienable Rights in pursuit of justice for himself and others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(2) November 2, 2004, by California voter approval of Proposition 64 ballot initiative enacted through California, voter proposition initiative system which allows the public to make legislation. This voter approved legislation now has the effect of denying Plaintiffs fundamental basic Inalienable Rights under the California State Constitution in his right to defend life and liberty, his right to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy. (3) Plaintiff has standing, plaintiff has been discriminated against, denied his right to public accommodation, denied his right to safety as a worker by defendants alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, and is now is being denied his Inalienable Civil Rights, due process, and equal protection rights under the law in his pursuit for justice. III. Background
(4) Plaintiff originally filed this case in the Superior Court County of San Diego. Defendant filed motion in Federal court and removed the case to Federal Court jurisdiction where plaintiff now pleads a Motion to Remand back to State court and defendant pleads a Motion to Dismiss in Federal court at this time. Plaintiff in Pro Se has attempted multiple times, and with multiple law firms, and through the California Bar Association in pursuit for legal counsel and has not been an able to acquire professional legal counsel to date, and therefore moves this action forward in Pro Se to the best of his abilities This is not a shakedown lawsuit, this lawsuit is not trivial, this lawsuit is about safety and justice and the right to obtain safety and justice for Plaintiff and everyone in seeking justice to enjoy defendants from alleged unlawful conduct. (5) Prior to Proposition 64s enactment and statute amendments to Californias UCL, plaintiff in Pro Se could have acted as a representative for himself and for the general public as a private attorney general and would have had the same remedies available (injunction and restitution relief only). The enactment of Proposition 64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
placed additional limitations of class action certification (plaintiffs in Pro per/pro se do not have legal authority to bring forth a class action certification and is not an attorney and not qualified to file for class action under the present language/restrictions imposed by propositions 64). (6) Proposition 64s class action restrictions have denied Plaintiffs ability to seek legal remedies (permanent injunction relief and restitution), due process, denies equal protection under the law, and places other restrictions that limit Plaintiffs access to redress grievances in his right to pursue justice. How could Proposition 64s amendment to state statutory law deny Plaintiffs Inalienable Rights and prohibit Plaintiff in Pro Se from defending his and other people of the State of Californias Inalienable Civil Rights to enjoy and defend life and liberty and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy for the benefit of himself and other people of the State of California (general public). Plaintiff had these rights prior to the enactment of Proposition 64s statutory provisions. Plaintiff asserts that Proposition 64s provisions were never intended to deny plaintiff his Inalienable Rights and have reached too far, and have trespassed upon plaintiffs Inalienable Rights. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the voter initiative never expressed language that would trespass upon any Inalienable Civil Rights of any California citizen. California State Constitution Article 1. Declaration of Rights Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Section 3.(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Section 3.(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the peoples right to access, and narrowly construed if it limits the rights of access. A statute, court rule, or other authorities adapted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adapted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitations and the need for protecting that interest. Section 3.(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantee that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the law. Section 16. Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all. (7) Proposition 64 amendment to the UCL also denies plaintiff in Pro Se access to the court for grievances regarding violations of UNRUH Civil Rights Act California Civil Code 51. IV. Proposition 64s Arguments Should individuals or class action unfair business lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on publics behalf. (8) Proposition 64 put an end to the Private Attorney General under Californias Unfair Business Competition Laws (ULC) 17200 et seq. 17400 and 17500. Cases prosecuted by unaffected Plaintiffs, purported on behalf of the general public and also placed additional requirements, ULC suits under Proposition 64 also mandated that actions involving aggregate claims proceed under California class action standards. Prior to the enactment of Proposition 64, any person could have acted on behalf of himself or herself and others, and brought suit under the ULC and did not require immediate additional burden of having their representative action certified as a class action. Proposition 64 voter initiative language that appeared on the ballot was:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(9) The question to the California Attorney General for the State of California is: Does the limitations and mandates that were amended with the implementation of Proposition 64s new statutory language overreach, infringe, and trespass upon the Inalienable Rights of Plaintiffs in Pro Se and deny plaintiffs due process to pursue and obtain safety for himself and other people of the State of California in denying remedy in pursuit of those Inalienable Rights under the California State Constitution. (10) Plaintiff challenges that the Proposition 64 amendments of statute language of the UCL on its face as applied is factually defective and invokes presumption of severability to its language, and in this case, plaintiff challenges the language overreach and factually challenges and asserts it should be rendered invalid in toto because it denies Plaintiffs in Pro Ses Inalienable Rights to the courts adjudication to secure and defend his and other Californians Inalienable Rights to enjoy and defend life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness and privacy. (11) Plaintiffs Inalienable Civil Rights to obtain and pursue safety are blocked by the statutory enactments of Proposition 64 voter initiative. Proposition 64s ballot initiative language did not address any constitutional changes that would limit Inalienable Rights of any California citizens. Proposition 64 voter initiative and statutory provisions did not have any language amending the State Constitution prohibiting plaintiffs from enjoying his and other people of the State of California Inalienable rights under California State Constitution and block Plaintiffs from seeking justice, remedy, and relief under the UCL and also blocks Plaintiffs UCL unlawful, unfair and fraudulent action from enjoying defendant from blocking emergency fire exit doors. (12) Proposition 64s statutory provisions to the UCL should not deny Plaintiffs Civil Rights under California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration of Rights Section 3, The people have the right to instruct their representatives and petition government for redress of grievances.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(2) A statute, court ruling, or other authorities, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthered the peoples right of access, and narrowly construed if it limited the rights of access. A statute court rules and other authorities adapted after the effective date of this subdivision that limit the rights of access shall be adapted with findings demonstrating the interest. The interest is for safety, the interest is for defending life in the interest of the welfare of the general public. The interest is to the right of the disabled to public accommodations, the right to access his rights of egress to the court, the right to justice, and the rights to the MEANS OF EGRESS (emergency fire exit doors) under California Fire Codes, Cal OSHA Safety Regulations, California Building Codes, California Health and Safety Codes and above all the Inalienable Rights of the California Constitutional Law to pursue and obtain safety and defend human life and liberty for Plaintiff and other people of the State of California for the benefit of safety and for the general welfare of the public and common good. (13) Proposition 64 limits the civil rights by denying access and remedies available through the court by denying Plaintiff in Pro Se proper venue in his pursuit to defend his Inalienable Civil Rights and the Rights under the California State Constitution to protect those interests and rights against discrimination, injustice, the right to public accommodations, right to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (14) The right to due process and equal protection under the law for Plaintiff and all citizens of the State of California is very much in question by the language of Proposition 64s amended language to the UCL statutes for a Plaintiff in Pro Se. (15) Plaintiff is defending the right to safety guaranteed under the California State Constitution and his right to obtain and pursue safety. The right to safety has been in the California State Constitution for over a hundred years, in which time no one has trespassed upon those Inalienable Rights. These California Constitution Inalienable Rights are the foundation laid down over 100 years ago. The right to privacy is a fairly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
new Inalienable Right that was added to the California Constitution in 1972. Since there is no reported discussion on the constitutional elements of safety, What, if any argument, could be put forth to deny the right to pursue and obtain safety ? There are indications of the potential nature and scope of the constitutional right to safety as an element, compared to the inalienable right of privacy as an element (i.e., an inalienable fundamental right like that of the right to privacy) in Hill vs National College Athletic Assn 7 Cal.4th 1 , (1994,). The Supreme Court established three elements of the cause of action for invasion of a constitutional right to privacy (1) a legally protected private interest. (2) A reasonable expectation of privacy on the plaintiffs part and (3) invasion of the privacy interests that is serious rather than slightly or trivial, Hill. 7 Cal .4th at 35-37. Logically the same elements should apply to a claim infringement of the constitutional right to safety. (a) Safety is a protected interest. (b) A reasonable expectation of safety on the plaintiffs part. (c) Invasion of safety interests that are serious rather than slightly or trivial. Although the presumption of privacy is not afforded in a public place under most situations, the right to safety is afforded in all places of public accommodation. V. Proposition 64 Statutory Provisions Amendment Intentions The question on the ballot was: Should individual or class-action unfair business lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on public behalf . The legislatures intent addressing the language of Proposition 64 voter initiative amendment of the UCL is illustrated below and addressed in Plaintiffs response in italics below: (1) Proposition 64 voter initiative was intended to stop UCL laws from being misused by private attorneys who misuse and file frivolous lawsuits as a means to generate attorneys fees without creating corresponding public benefits. Blocked fire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
exits and safety are not frivolous matters. Plaintiff is not entitled to any attorneys fees and Plaintiffs action would provide for a substantial public interest of consumers and employees, on behalf of the general public. (2) File lawsuits with no clients who have injury in fact. Plaintiff in this case has injury in fact and also economic injuries as a result of the defendants alleged unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practices and has standing. (3) File lawsuits for the client who has not used the defendants products or services, used in the defendants advertising, or at any other business with the defendant. Plaintiff had been a customer of the defendant for over several years and purchased tens of thousands of dollars in products over that period of time for both business and personal use. Plaintiff was aware of their advertising and their corporate speech in relations to their business activities and would still like to be a customer there if it was not for their alleged unlawfulness. (4) File lawsuits on behalf of the general public without any accountability for the public and without adequate court supervision. Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the general public and believes that everyone is accountable for safety, especially in the times that we live in when vigilance is necessary and emergency preparedness should be practiced and safety afforded under the California Constitution in defending life and liberty and pursuing and obtaining safety. When those in responsibility for regulatory enforcement compliance to the law do not provide for adequate public safety, any citizen has the right to step forward and act for the benefit of himself and the benefit of others in the pursuit of safety for the welfare of the general public. The law protects those that do not sit upon their laurels. (5) Frivolous unfair competition lawsuits clog our courts and cost taxpayers. Such lawsuits cause California jobs and economic prosperity, threatening the survival of small businesses and forcing businesses to raise their prices and lay off employees to pay lawsuit settlement costs or to relocate to states that do not permit such lawsuits.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Once again, safety is not frivolous and is an Inalienable Right of all California citizens under Constitutional State Law and also instilled in many other areas of law, including California Fire Codes, California Building Codes, California Health and Safety Codes and Cal OSH Regulations. The defendant is not a small business, and in fact is a large national corporation that uses this limitation imposed by the language of Proposition 64 to further the alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and uses it as a shield to ward off valid attempts at remedying the unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices Even though this multinational corporation has deep pockets, this is not about money, this is about safety and the right to obtain it, and the present language of Proposition 64 only assists and enables the defendants denial of the alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practice and further protects the evil from justice and thereby allows the injustice to persist in blocking the Inalienable Rights of the Plaintiff in seeking justice. The alleged unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct of defendants consist of habitual, repetitive conduct at multiple locations in violation to many of the MEANS OF EGRESS (obstruction of emergency fire exits), fire lanes and other fire code violations that put employees and customers at great risk and are not trivial and in fact may cause someone their life one day, be it fire, earthquake, act of violence or panic and stampede. History has shown this to be true. The cost of providing regulatory compliance to safety, including training and maintenance, should already be built into the cost of business and the cost that all other businesses in California already bear as a cost of doing business within the State jurisdiction of California. He who takes benefit must bear the burden. The fact that the defendant in this situation failed to provide adequate public accommodation and violates California Fire Codes, Cal OSHA Codes and placed plaintiff, customers, employees, and first responders at risk needlessly is the cause of this action. Plaintiff has informed defendant, Home Depot, USA Inc., of alleged unlawful conduct prior to litigation. Defendant was sent a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Demand Letter with substantiating evidence of the noncompliance to safety, which consisted of no monetary forfeiture or necessity to meet its regulatory compliance. Plaintiff made no demand for money from defendant. Defendant chose to completely ignore Plaintiffs reasonable pleading in plaintiffs demand letter to defendant, Home Depot USA Inc., prior to commencement of this action. Plaintiff refuses to walk away from the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendants and the ramifications and unnecessary risk it places upon its customers, employees, and first responders by defendants silence and alleged unfair, unlawful fraudulent conduct in its pursuit fo r profit. This is not about money; this is about safety and the lack of it and the right to safety. No business has the right to risk human life in its pursuit of profit. (6) It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act to eliminate frivolous unfair competition lawsuits while protecting the rights of individuals to retain an attorney and file an action for relief pursuant to Chapter 5 commencing with 17200. Protecting the rights of the individual - What provision exists under the law when legal counsel is not attainable and willing to pursue this course of action presented in Plaintiffs pleading? Why, because there is no financial gain to be had; why, because Plaintiff is not seeking financial gain, Plaintiff is only seeking the rule of law and the rights of Plaintiff and all people of the State of California to the right to pursue and obtain safety. Plaintiff acts as a true private attorney general without compensation. Even the Attorney General for the State of California is compensated for their efforts. Prior to Proposition 64, any person could have acted as a private attorney general and brought action forward on behalf of the general public without the need for class action status. There is no legal basis to deny Plaintiffs rights. There is no coupon that could be redeemable for the right to safety. (7) It is the intent of California voters in enacting this act to prohibit private attorneys from filing lawsuits for unlawful competition where they have no client who has been injured in fact under the standing required by the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
in Pro Se asserts he has the right to act as a private attorney general in this action. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact under the standing requirements of the U.S. Constitution and Plaintiff also has standing as a California citizen who has suffered injury in fact, and has also suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant s alleged unlawful, unfair business practices by defendants in the State of California. (8) It is in the interest of California voters to enact this act that only the California Attorney General and the local public officials be authorized to file and prosecute actions on behalf of the general public. Plaintiff would gladly welcome the State Attorney General or local public officials to file and prosecute on behalf of the general public. The State Attorney Generals Office had been notified about the problem (PIU 493054). The State Solicitor General had been notified with a copy of the complaint. The San Diego Fire Department had been notified about violations on several occasions. The Department of Cal OSHA had been notified, and several requests by Plaintiff were rendered moot by defendants alleged perjury to Cal OSHA officials in their interaction in warding off any site inspection. Plaintiff has gone to great extent to try to get those in authority to address these matters. Plaintiff has documented all the interactions with public authorities and those responsible for regulatory compliance and enforcement. Plaintiff has documented years of unfair business competition of alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct by the defendants. Plaintiff would welcome and assist with the preponderance of photographic evidence and correspondence and disclose to the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution and provide declarations of facts surrounding the alleged unlawful conduct, and any necessary depositions by Plaintiff for the necessity of laying the foundation necessary in the production of the preponderance evidence of the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendant. Plaintiff will cooperate with all public officials, including testifying and bearing witness without any compensation whatsoever, all in pursuit of Plaintiffs Inalienable Rights to pursue and obtain safety.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
There will be a day when the evidentiary facts come to light, whether in a court of law with or without the help of those responsible for the enforcement of the rule law. Again, this Plaintiff welcomes any and all intervention by the State Attorney Generals Office, San Diego Fire Department, Cal OSHA, and any and all public agencies and individuals with authority to act solely for parallel or piggyback on plaintiffs action. Prosecution action is unavailable for any private attorney general and is only available to public officials who hold that authorization to prosecute actions. Plaintiff has no right to prosecute any action, and never intended to prosecute, never intended to seek fees, penalties or fines that are available only to the public Attorney General. When others fail to act and sit upon their laurels, Plaintiff takes action. Plaintiff is not prosecuting on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff is only seeking injunction relief in the name of safety on behalf of himself and other people of the State of California for the benefit of the general public. For every wrong, there is a remedy. (9) It is in the interest of California voters to enact this act that an Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel, and City Attorneys maintain their public protection authority and capability under the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff believes in this, he maintains that his action only runs parallel to their inactions. Plaintiff again welcomes the actions of any and all of these officials who step forward to take the lead in prosecuting and seeking remedy that is not available to Plaintiff. (10) It is in the interest of the California voters to enact this act to require the civil penalty payments to be used by the Attorney General, District Attorney, County Council or City Attorney to strengthen the enforcement of California Unfair Competition and consumer protection laws. Again, plaintiff is an agreement. Plaintiff realizes that the Attorney Generals Office and all enforcement agencies are overwhelmed, underfunded, and understaffed to meet the needs for the enforcement of laws, regulations, codes, and standards. Plaintiffs action did not interfere or restrict these remedies available to these agencies that are not available to Plaintiff. In fact,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs efforts and preponderance of evidence would help provide the necessary catalyst for the payment of civil penalties to the Attorney General, County, or City Attorney to strengthen the enforcement of Californias Unfair Competition and consumer protection laws. There is a multitude of evidence that would lead to substantial financial benefit to strengthen the enforcement that is so underfunded by the inability of government financial limitations. VI. (16) Excerpts from plaintiffs SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Unconstitutional Statutory Law 358. There should be no statutory provision under the law that would preclude any plaintiff or other people from acting as a private attorney general, representative of others or solely for himself, plaintiff in Pro per, or by legal counsel from defending all their Inalienable Rights under California State Constitution, Declaration of Rights Article 1, Section 1, including the Inalienable Right to defend life and liberty and pursue and obtain safety and for enjoying any defendants alleged violation of California State Law including California Fire code, Cal/OSHA Regulations, California Public Accommodation Laws or any statutory law to preclude the indisputable Inalienable Rights to defend life and liberty and pursue and obtain safety for oneself and that of all Californians. 359. Plaintiff asserts Proposition 64 that became effective November 3, 2004 that impose two significant restrictions which apply to actions filed by private individuals or entities. The language that was struck from 17204 Seeking for the interest of itself and members of the general public and the requirement under the UCL provisions post 64 enactment requiring all private cases involving aggregate claims comport with California class action standards amending 17203 procedures requiring the necessity to maintain a class action imposing the requirements that usually apply to state and federal courts commonality typically adequate representation and superiority. Case No.: 14-CV-0071 GPC JMA. On pages 124 and 125, paragraph 358-361, titled:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff asserts that this language of voter initiative Proposition 64 is Unconstitutional under California State Constitution to defend himself and others. 360. The statutory language replaced language that prior provided relief to all individual citizens. The voter initiative was intended to circumvent actions that were frivolous and abusive by individuals who did not suffer injury in fact. Plaintiff asserts that the voter initiative and statutory provision modification to the law infringes upon the Inalienable Rights of all citizens of the State of California in the pursuit of justice. Plaintiff asserts he has the right to act as a private attorney general in Pro per and litigate his rights in the manner previously allowed prior to Proposition 64 which now trespasses upon plaintiffs Inalienable Civil Rights under California State Constitution. Plaintiff asserts that Proposition 64 is unconstitutional in denying plaintiff to act as a private attorney general in his pursuit to defend life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety. 361. Plaintiff asserts there is no federal language stated in any paragraphs 1 through 361 of this complaint. Plaintiff asserts diverse jurisdiction does not exist for removal purposes. Plaintiff asserts this action deals with rights within the State of California and State rights issues only. Plaintiff asserts there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction within this complaint. VII. Question Summarization (17) The rule of reason and constitutional tests frame factual challenges. Is Plaintiff in Pro Se entitled to his due process and equal protection under the laws of the State of California for his defense and preservation of his Inalienable Civil Rights on behalf of himself and other people of the State of California? Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, Plaintiff has disabilities and requests reasonable accommodations (stop blocking fire exits). The court is one of equity; Plaintiff contends human life is priceless. Safety has a cost that we all pay for each day through many aspects of our lives. When safety costs the most, is when it is not applied, disrespected, ignored, and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
its consequences and the cost sometimes unmeasurable by the individuals, families, victims, and the communities that bear witness to the failure of noncompliance to safety. (18) Plaintiff seeks no money, no penalties, no damages, no fines, and no monetary benefit for himself other than injunction relief and restitution. Plaintiff acts as a pure private attorney general and only seeks injunction relief remedies necessary in defending his Inalienable Right to pursue and obtain safety, defend life, liberty, happiness, and privacy. These Inalienable Rights should not be trespassed upon by the Proposition 64 voter initiative and statutory amendments to the California Business and Professional Code 17200 et seq. 17207 and 17500. Plaintiff had these Inalienable Rights prior to the enactment of Proposition 64 and asserts that he still possesses these Inalienable Rights and the rights to defend and secure them and the remedies available for himself and other people of the State of California. (19) Plaintiff respectfully requests any assistance from the State Attorney Generals Office to review these constitutional questions, and upon completion, make any decision on the merits as to intervention by you or your office and inform the court within 60 days after this Notice has been filed or after court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. (20) Enclosed is a copy of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint on file with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No.: 3-14-Cv-00071-GPC-JMA Doc. No.16. February 20, 2014 Michael McGrath in Pro Se, Plaintiff BY /s/ Michael McGrath 415 Summerhill Ter., Alpine, CA. 91901 E-mail: mmhd911@gmail.com

Memorandum of Points of Authority in Support of Plaintiffs Motion Asserting Constitutional Question To State Statutes 2-20-14 Ok Site

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Memorandum of Points of Authority in Support of Plaintiffs Motion Asserting Constitutional Question To State Statutes 2-20-14 Ok Site

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II. QUESTION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Potrebbero piacerti anche