Furchtenicht Appeal Denied By Top Court
Lawsuit prompted by chain-store ban, housing
By Lenny Roberts
The California Supreme Court Wednesday refused to hear an appeal filed in November by American Civil Liberties Union attorney Peter Eliasberg on behalf of Ojai resident Jeff Furchtencht, who, in 2006, tried to get two initiatives on the general election ballot.
The initiatives, which addressed chain stores and affordable housing, were rejected by Ojai city attorney Monte Widders because Widders believed they were not submitted in the proper manner.
Since the initiatives did not propose legislation, Widders asked Furchtenicht to withdraw, revise and resubmit them. Furch-tenicht refused, and Widders was forced to seek the judicial intervention of the Ventura County Superior Court, according to city officials. A decision by Judge Ken Riley, and later upheld by California 2nd District Court of Appeals Justice Steven Z. Perren, held that Widders had acted properly in refusing to accept Furchtenicht’s initiatives.
In early December, the ACLU asked California’s highest court to review the appeal, which it denied Wedneday.
When notified of that decision, attorney Eliasberg said, “I’m very disappointed and think the court of appeals denial will have a chilling effect on people who want to use the initiative process.”
In a prepared statement, Widders acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision was “very satisfying.” Mayor Joe DeVito said, “It is gratifying to have the California courts affirm the actions of our city officials. The issues in the case have long ago been discussed and acted upon by the City Council.”
Furchtenicht did not return a call by press time.
The two-year-long battle cost the city of Ojai $93,810, according to city manager Jerry Kersnar.
In refusing to accept the initiatives for the Elction all Ojai people were deprived of their constitutional right to vote on the issue of allowing chainstores (Which is against the integrity of the charm and peace and safety of this town) and destruction of quaint old little houses to make place for big condos. (Again against the integrity of Ojai’s unique charm and most beautiful town in USA). Widders is a developers lawyer. He is paid to get developments in which takes away from Ojais beautiful and historical character.I suggest replacing Witters with an Environmental,protective lawyer as soon as possible.
I was at the meeting were Witters had told Jeff to withdraw or he would sue. When we got to the meeting he had already sued!
JF had no chance to change anything in the initiatives if it wasnot written down correctly. It was the protection of his developers which cost the city $100.000.
Also ACLU had taken the case probono as all the voters of Ojai were involved. So sad for democracy
If you have something better to say, then say it.
with comment moderation in place, how is it that some of these comments pass through, particularly the last five???
…amen
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
…such a boring topic
….so little interest.
So many jokes . . . .
I have a job 1:49, which is delivering the morning news of which you have yet to read. The
indigo children have arrived and they bring peace,
hope, and an end to all suffering, even for you…
Anonymouse 2:37 I have a job,oh joy- it is delivering the morning news that you have not yet read. The indigo children have arrrived and they are bringing light, joy, hope, peace and an end to all suffering, even for you!
To Anonymous 23 Jan 09 at 8:12 pm:
Well put.
To Anonymous 23 Jan 09 at 3:47 pm:
What you wrote merely serves to illustrate what most people in Ojai already believe: that you, and all of those who continue to carry your tale, are part of a team whose greatest strength is its ability to concoct and promote some extremely disingenuous and self-serving fiction, which you then attempt to pass off as the truth, disclaimer or no. Has this strategy worked for you yet? No. (And you just can’t figure out why, can you?)
How sad it must be to go through life wearing blinders and eating sour grapes.
Ojai City Council Closed Session Meeting
Mayor DeVito: “Monte, I just want to congratulate you on winning the case against that newbie. You sure showed him!”
Councilperson Horgan: “Yes, Monte, I second the congratulations. And we’re due some congrats ourselves. We sure showed all those fringe element people! Maybe now they’ll all get foreclosed on and get out of here. Remind me to ask Jere to send the judges a personal thank you.”
Councilperson Olsen: “Ahem. Me too, Monte. Good job. But let’s get on to business. Monte, I want you to know I support this new initiative submitted by Joe Blow. I think its a good idea. Its about time we honored you.”
City Attorney Widders: “Well, I appreciate the sentiment. The initiative is short and sweet. Let me read it to you. Here is the full text:
“The city council is hereby directed to consider and adopt measures to enact “Monte Widders Appreciation Day.” The council is instructed to consider an appropriate day and location, and to provide free pizza and beer to the public.”
I’ve been asked to give it a title and summary. What do you want me to do?”
DeVito: “Can we just enact it right now?”
Attorney Widders: “No, Joe.”
DeVito: “Well, then give it the title and summary! I want to be the first to sign the petition!”
Councilmember Smith: “Wait, wait. This initiative tells us we have to enact an appreciation day? Isn’t that the same problem as with the other one?”
Attorney Widders (looking down): “Yes. It is. But I called Joe Blow on the phone. He said if you’ll all just put this on a council agenda, he’ll withdraw his request for a title and summary.”
Smith: “Can we do that? Didn’t you tell us before we couldn’t do that?”
Widders: “Carol, please. Let’s not talk about the past. Let’s look forward. I am telling you now that you can put this initiative on an agenda, and don’t have to sue.”
(Mumbling from Olsen, Horgan and DeVito.)
Horgan: “Monte, won’t we look sort of hypocritical if we don’t sue Joe Blow on this one?”
Olsen: “Monte, I’m concerned we’ll set a precedent here if we change course now. If we don’t sue Joe Blow, what’s to stop somebody else from coming in here and trying to get something improper on the agenda?”
Councilmember Clapp (interjecting): “Wait a minute. No way. Stop right there. I am not going to allow another lawsuit. I cannot believe we are even discussing it. We don’t have the budget for this!”
(More mumbling from Olsen, Horgan and DeVito.)
Councilmember Olsen: “I move that we direct Attorney Widders to file a lawsuit against Joe Blow. Monte, will $100,000 be enough to get this one done?”
Attorney Widders: “No guarantees, Steve. You know how litigation goes. But that should get us started.”
DeVito: “I second. File the lawsuit. $100,000 authorized.”
Clapp and Smith, together: “Wait a minute! Stop!”
Horgan: “Aye from me. That’s a majority. Go to it, Monte.”
Attorney Widders: “Heh-heh. Thank you. I’ll get right on it.”
(Meeting adjourns)
And so it goes…
The foregoing is satire and does not depict true events. Our city attorney and city councilmembers are nothing like the portrayal set forth here for satirical purposes. They are all wonderful, dedicated public servants whose efforts we appreciate very much.
As far as I know, Widders doesn’t have the power to set the agenda. As far as the city council’s role in this, perhaps its members didn’t want to set a precedent for setting agendas in this manner. agenda dictated in such a fashion. Imagine that the subject of the initiatives were different. For example, let’s say an initiative seeks to prohibit the city from hiring anyone who isn’t a White Mormon. Widders notifies the White Mormon who submitted the initiative that he will seek declaratory relief if the initiative isn’t withdrawn. The proponent’s response is, I’ll withdraw it if you put it on the agenda. I also want the city manager to work up a full-blown proposal on how we can get this thing enacted. Absurd, right?
The point is, anyone could force their own agenda, no matter what it is, simply by filing an initiative and then refusing to withdraw it on the condition that it be put on the agenda. That would be, and was in this case, an exploitation of the initiative power for an improper purpose. It does injury to the process, not the other way around.
JF may not be as smart as he thinks he is, but he isn’t stupid either. He knew he filed the initiatives too late to qualify for the November election. He wanted to force each member of the city council to take a position on chain stores and affordable housing before the election. He admitted as much in his court papers. Again, it’s an abuse of the initiative power and allowing it would only serve to water it down. He also knew every day that went by, Widders would find himself deeper and deeper in derogation of his duty to prepare ballot titles and summaries. Suppose that placing the items on the agenda didn’t lead to a resolution JF deemed satisfactory. Would he then have refused to withdraw?
So, Widders apparently had no choice but to file suit. While the decision may have been politically unpopular to some, the alternative would have been unpopular to others. In fact, failing to file suit could have subjected the city to litigation attacking the process by which the matters were ultimately enacted into law. Who might file such a suit? Developers and chain store owners. JF put Widders, and the city, in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” predicament. It’s very easy to second-guess Widders’ decisionmaking, but the court ultimately vindicated his position. I’m sure if he hadn’t filed suit, JF and his supporters would still be vilifying him for refusing to prepare titles and summaries for the initiatives. That issue couldn’t be resolved without filing suit, so long as Furchtenicht refused to withdraw his initiatives. So the question arises again: Why didn’t he withdraw them? The answer seems obvious: Because it wasn’t his goal to get the initiatives on the ballot. That being so, he had no businesses invoking the initiative process. His goal of forcing the council’s hand to effect the outcome of the election was plainly improper. While I don’t doubt he was also genuinely motivated by a desire to achieve the goals outlined in his initiatives, the court’s opinion makes clear that he improperly attempted to exploit the law in the process.
I also keep hearing about Widders wasting $100,000. I would love to see a breakdown as to how much would have been expended had JF simply allowed the trial judge to rule on the declaratory relief action, based on the arguments he had already made to Widders. Instead, JF acted like someone involved in a minor fender-bender who shows up in court with a neck brace, claiming severe whiplash and seeking punitive damages. He’s a lawyer. He knows exactly a declaratory relief action is. It’s nothing like a complaint for damages, yet he and his followers (apparently very few) love to cry out “he was sued” as if there’s no difference.
burpee,
No slip. The verb “foreclose” is a synonymous with “preclude,” which is defined as “to make impossible by necessary consequence: rule out in advance.” Look it up. Better yet, get a job.
“It forecloses your remarks” Wow- did you slip on your Freudian? Revealingly well put illustration of the past eight years economic meltdown and piracy! Oh, and Joe Blow- was that your collegiate moniker? PL
Widders could have ended this at no cost to the city by simply putting affordable housing and independent businesses on the city council agenda.
No cost. As in, zero.
Instead, he plowed ahead with his lawsuit.
Almost $100,000 later, come again, armchair scholars: What is good for Ojai in this?
It defies common sense that he was allowed to do this. The city just kept spending and spending.
Where’s the accountability?
Jeff,
Where are you now? Your big mouth sure has gotten quiet.
PL,
Your name calling will always perk the ears of the fringe left, and they’re always good for ten percent of the vote. But for such a populist, you sure don’t seem to carry much weight. It’s time that you went home.
Oh yeah, it’s a real page-turner. Particularly fascinating is Wean’s claim that the Holocaust is “a scam.” What’s next, a glowing review of Mein Kampf?
…This harrowing tale is a crisp nuts and bolts narrative of a decent public servant witnessing the foulness of government corruption up-close.
My eyes bugged out like organ stops as I pored through Wean’s page-turner. All of the worst pronouncements of a cynic do no justice to the pervasive decay and moral ruin that exists within our judicial, legislative, executive and police agencies. This is not just California corruption Mr. Wean refers to (in detail), but a whole nation nearly poisoned unto death by its caretakers.”
Thanks for the clarification. Solid assessments at 8:10 pm Jan. 21 and 1:56 pm Jan. 22, IMO.
PL has touted it in 2 prior posts. I don’t think JF is quite that far gone.
Who’s associating himself with Wean’s paranoid and psychotic rant? JF, or PL?
PL: Wow, that’s interesting. All I did is respond to your post. You’re the one guilty of “digressing” into a rant about “right wing neocons” who have “stacked” the court. Is Gray Davis a right wing neocon? It seems that whenever you are presented with anything of substance – say, for example, the court’s opinion – you revert to a laundry list of cliches that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I’ll say it again – read the court’s opinion. It forecloses your remarks.
For example, who was kicking the dead horse? Jeff F. took the case to the court of appeal. While Widders cross-appealed, anyone with a minimal understanding of legal procedure understood that it was necessary to fully preserve his right to oppose reversal of the SLAPP ruling, because it was JF’s position that the ruling on the demurrer was determinative of the second prong of the SLAPP motion. After that, it was JF who took the case up to the Supreme Court. You also continue to overlook the fact that the case had nothing to do with the substance of the initiatives JF tried to put forward.
If one was concerned with ensuring that the initiative became law, why would he or she reject efforts to make sure that happened? Probably because he or she has a monstrous ego and believes he or she is smarter than everyone else. I suppose it hurts such a person to admit that he made a mistake, but guess what? Widders was right – imagine that, a city attorney who understands municipal law. The initiatives couldn’t be enacted into law. Should everyone have gone through all the effort of collecting signatures, campaigning, etc., and then find out that the initiatives were no good? Anyone with half a brain can see that this was just a pi**ing match that had nothing to do with chain stores or affordable housing.
BTW, it’s ironic that one who tries to paint himself as a champion of the left would ever associate himself with an anti-semitic diatribe like “There’s a Fish in the Courthouse.”
pete, you right. elitists = progressives
Last comment, anonymouse is void for digressing
into personal politics. When are elitists going to wake up to the present day to view theirs as not the only reality, that a place to live under a million and a quality of life besides cookie cutter franchise is not
only for the priviledged few? Your “vast majority” of
general funds were spent kicking a dead horse. I
expect I’ll keep my ACLU card, thank you…
PL,
Two of the three court of appeal judges who decided the case are liberal democrats. Four of the seven Supreme Court judges are also unabashedly liberal, yet none of them voted to hear the case. Their denial of the request to depublish the case is also quite telling.
The “truth” to which you claim to be so beholden is that the measures that were submitted couldn’t be enacted into law. It’s also true that the vast majority of funds expended in the case were due to Jeff F.’s misguided attempts turn it into the proverbial “federal case,” along with his refusal to simply let the matter rest after the trial court issued its ruling. Also, one who purports to be so concerned with preserving of “a populist platform” should recognize, as the court did, that the strategy employed here only serves to undermine the integrity of the initiative process. I suggest you read the court’s opinion again, with particular attention to the conclusion.
You, my friend, have your own bitter pill to swallow.
Honesty is still the best policy in government, even
with courts stacked by right wing neo-cons. Jeff F
never swayed from the truth, yet the city spent public
funds to the bitter end to deny him a populist platform. Old dogs, like old judges and disgraced political leaders, die hard and with
a bitter pill they refuse to swallow. PL
Yes, Plessy v. Ferguson is a case that was overruled 58 years later. I assume your point is that the court’s decision in this case will be overruled someday as well. Talk about grasping at straws. You lost. Get over it.
That’s a nice quote from Plessy v. Ferguson. What ever happened to that case?
In a minute now, we will be directed to a youtube video that we can cut and paste that will explain the above comment by Anonymous 10:27pm, perhaps we will be treated to 5 0r 6 youtube video sites.
Doesn’t the above comment belong in Rambling Rants, given that it has nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread?
Furchtenicht’s defenders are now playing the ‘race card’?
Here’s what the United States Supreme Court once held about “separate but equal”:
“A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races — a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color — has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or reestablish a state of involuntary servitude.”
This is what the court of appeal said about the “chilling effect” argument:
“Widders gave an objective assessment of
Furchtenicht’s initiatives pursuant to his role as city attorney. He did not express any views regarding the subject matter, and gave no indication whether he
personally or professionally disagreed with the stated objectives. He merely conveyed his informed conclusion that the measures were invalid. Instead of
accepting Widders’s suggestion that he attempt to correct the deficiencies,Furchtenicht chose to view Widders as an adversary and challenged his legal
conclusions. When given the option of withdrawing the initiatives or facing litigation, Furchtenicht effectively chose the latter. Nothing about this scenario conveys the impression that citizens will be sued for merely speaking out on an issue or otherwise participating in the local political process. Simply put, none of Furchtenicht’s contentions undermine the conclusion that judicial intervention in this case was necessary, proper, and timely.”
Only if he or she was once a kid who refused to learn how to walk because the first time they tried they fell down and were laughed at and the experience made them decide that they’d never try to walk again.
LOL! The thing is, there is not one recorded case in history of a kid capable of walking refusing to learn how to walk for fear of being laughed at. Still trying to play the victim, here, when the citizens of Ojai are soaked for $93,810. Ridiculous!
I wish this would have a “chilling effect” on frivolous legal matters that waste time and money.
Was Jeff F. scarred by this? I hope he will see a shaman or priestess, who can help him through his issues, and then fill out the form properly.:-)
Is there anyone out there who truly considered pulling together an initiative but was discouraged by reading about this case
Only if he or she was once a kid who refused to learn how to walk because the first time they tried they fell down and were laughed at and the experience made them decide that they’d never try to walk again.
they were not submitted in the proper manner.
Since the initiatives did not propose legislation, Widders asked Furchtenicht to withdraw, revise and resubmit them. Furch-tenicht refused…
What is this “chilling effect” nonsense? Is there anyone out there who truly considered pulling together an initiative but was discouraged by reading about this case (where a guy filled out the app wrong, and then refused to correct it or pull it?)
Isn’t the ACLU a chain store?
Next stop: The U.S. Supreme Court. If that fails, Jeff’s going to petition the Lord with prayer……petition the Lord with prayer……..
I thank the goddess (Aw’yeei’i) that Jeffy and Sean Keenan have nourished our community with their ongoing success(es)…