Ed Jew, Brute? Part Four: Try Harder

Constant Readers: I am sure you all remember that, on June 18, the City Attorney filed a request with the State Attorney General for a quo warranto action to remove Supervisor Jew from office. On Tuesday, July 3, Jew's lawyers reportedly submitted 168 pages of documents in opposition to the City Attorney's request.

Now, I have not seen the actual documents Jew's lawyers submitted, though I am eager to read them when they are posted somewhere. In the meantime, credible news sources have been reporting on the substance of the documents.

I must say, so far, reading about the humorously desperate arguments put forth by Jew's Scheme Team is like watching a cat trying to cover crap on a marble floor. "He got rid of his garbage at the flower shop" (scrape scrape) "he uses a cell phone and doesn't watch cable" (scrape scrape) "the investigation was racist" (scrape scrape scrape scrape).

However, the seminal shady argument advanced by Jew's lawyers is summarized in the Chronicle like this: "'The question is not 'Does Supervisor Jew live full-time at (2450 28th Ave.)?' but rather whether his connection with the house satisfies the legal requirement,'' the attorneys said. Instead, the question should be whether he intends to return there when he goes to other locations.

To demonstrate the ridiculousness of this argument, allow me to play a little Mad Libs with the a summary of the same argument as it is explained in the Examiner:

Melissa's attorneys, Steven Gruel and James Sutton, state in the filing that "friends and neighbors" have met her or seen her at Bob's Bar at the Omni Hotel and Melissa has slept at the bar "with increasing frequency since last July, while spending the remainder of her nights at an apartment in District 6." While the facts may not show Melissa lived at Bob's Bar "full-time," she had "an intent to stay" at the bar, which, they argue, satisfies the residency laws.

(Not that any of that is true. Though I have been known to doze off at Bob's if not sufficiently amused by my companions. Which is obviously their fault.)

So, where the hell are Jew's lawyers getting this "intent to return" nonsense? Well, since there is no definition of "has resided [in the appropriate District]" in the San Francisco Charter's residency requirement, the Charter provides that, by default, California State law applies. According to the California State Elections Code, "residence" for voting purposes is the same thing as "domicile." A domicile, in turn, is "that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile."

Until I see the actual documents, I won't go into the fact that Jew's lawyers appear to be perverting the definition of "domicile" by relying too heavily on the "intent to return" element. Instead, let us focus on what we can clearly see happening: Supervisor Jew is showing a profound disrespect for the privilege of holding San Francisco public office by advocating a tortured definition of residence found in the State Elections Code that, even if you believe, is basically a big ol' Middle Finger to the intent of the San Francisco Supervisor legal residency requirement.

Anyone who respects the will of the voters who elected to change from at-large to district elections in 1996, understands that, dammit, the question MOST CERTAINLY IS, "Does Supervisor Jew live full-time at (2450 28th Ave.)?" This is precisely the reason why we have district voting. In other words, his presence at the Board will continue to be a farce even in the unlikely event that Jew is successful at keeping his seat, because he will have done so by virtue of putting forth a hypertechnical legal fiction about an "intent to return" to District 4 (scrape scrape).

-Melissa

Comments

[el Greco]

Melissa, Bob asked me to pass on this message to you. "My dear Melissa, we don't mind if you pass out and sleep at our bar, but would you mind settling your tab before you doze off? Thanks so much, your bartender, Bob."

[Greg]

it is interesting that Jim Sutton is one of the attorneys for Ed Jew, in that he also serves as attorney to a number of other local elected officials. Most likely because he is one of the few attorneys in town that can decode and work with the mass of confusing, conflicting and often just plain poorly written election laws at the local level, which often conflict with the state, and the federal laws, and so on....

[Sweet Melissa]

El Greco: Duly noted. I hope the bartender will still support my bid for District 3 Supervisor!

Greg: Any non-Asian lawyer who can argue with a straight face that the invesigation Ed Jew was anti-Asian because it was only conducted by non-Asians is clearly a gem of the City. And yes, the election laws are poorly written and contradictory - which is why I hope the State Attorney and judge look to the intent of the residency requirement as well. I didn't know that this guy was the lawyer of choice for public officials - thanks so much for pointing that out!

[Applejuice]

People of San Francisco, Residents of District 4:
Make your voice heard!
This Friday, July 27th, at 9AM.
Go to the Steps of the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant @ 7th), and tell Ed Jew that it is time to resign.
It is only right that the D4 Supervisor represent the people of District 4.
We will be showing up early, about 8AM, and making ourselves heard!
Ed Jew's multiple staged entrances through the crowd of Chinatown folks should not be the only story that the media covers.
Bring Signs, bring your voices, and bring your friends!

Can’t make it Friday?
Let Gavin know how you feel. The Mayor is scheduled to make an appearance at Jefferson Elementary. (Irving and 18th Ave.)
That’s Saturday, July 28th, 9 AM.
Once again, come early, and express your opinion!

These gatherings of concerned citizens are in no way affiliated with any political candidates or organizations.