Dear Ron,
Thank you for your patience. You are correct, the legal involvement
does not end with just writing and translating.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Marcy;
>
> On the Police Initiative in and of itself is not what costs.
>
> To have a non-binding Police Initiative placed on the ballot
means a 500 word pre-circulation statement would have to be drafted
and submitted and approved by City Attorney and Dept Elections. This
requires legal help.
>
> Even a non-binding public policy statement because you are
directing police administration would still have to be written so as
not to end up being shot down by the courts because it is illegal to
have an administrative initiative. This does require legal help.
>
> If the City Attorney approved Initiative name had to be
challenged legal assistance is required to file a writ of mandamus to
appear before a judge to petition for a title name.
>
> The Circulating Police Initiative would have to be written and
approved in three languages. It must meet the legally required format
requirements this requires legal help..
>
> If any funds were raised to assist in the process there are
mandatory reporting requirements. This must definitely meet legal
requirements.
>
> After City Attorney approval you must publish intent to
circulate. This must meet legal requirements.
>
> The circulators must meet certain legal requirements to gather
signatures and must sign a legal certificate to that effect.
>
> The Ballot Simplification Committee is charged with providing a
digest of the Initiative for the ballot booklet. If there are
difficulties with the Digest this will require legal help.
>
> There is a period of time when the Initiative and all support
documents are available for required public review prior to going
into the voter ballot. ANY person may file a writ of mandate or an
injunction to amend or delete provisions of the Initiative. This will
require legal help.
>
> If any campaign signs or whatever of this nature are used they
must pass legal review at both local and state levels. This requires
legal help.
>
> A non-binding Petition totally avoids all of the above and in
comparison costs zero.
>
> In all likelihood IF all the steps I previously outlined on going
the Petition route were followed in all likely hood a significant
number in the tens of thousands of signatures could be gathered AND a
direct meeting with the Mayor - Pres Bd SUpes and Chief Fong and
Pres. Police Commission would have more direct impact than a non-
binding Initiative.
>
> Yes it is a dollar thing no it can't really be done on the cheap
because Election Laws are very specific - YOU are held personally
responsible for any legal errors even if those legal errors get the
Initiative shot down.
>
> It was like the recent brouhaha over a I think a Green candidate
not qualifying as a write in because the name of the candidate wasn't
done properly or some such thing.
>
> A Petition process avoids all that mess and could be just as
effective if done properly.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
> I am heartbroken (not just frustrated, like Starchild seems to be)
> that we once again had to set the opportunity for an initiative
> aside. If I am reading the situation correctly, what stopped us
was
> money. No money, no initiative. So, we settled for the next best,
a
> petition. I have asked this question before, but here it goes
> again: What is the difference between a non-binding petition and a
> probably-non-binding-because-we-could-not-afford-an-attorney
> initiative? So, we go through the motion of submitting the
initiative
> to an attorney (law practitioner? Lexis-Nexis? law student?) and
find
> a translator who can translate economically, then we do the same
> thing with the resulting probably-non-binding-initiative as we
would
> do with the for-sure-non-binding petition.
>
> I am not in favor of an expensive initiative (or an expensive
> anything else), but does an initiative really, really, really have
to
> be expensive? Can we have a half-baked one?
>
> BTW, you are correct that the subject on the table right now is the
> Police Initiative, not any other.
>
> If you read this far, thank you!!
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Since you will be asking them for a legal opinion you should be
> prepared to pay a retainer for their services. This is due to the
> fact that you are asking them to analysis the Oakland Measure Z and
> provide a legal opinion as to whether or not it could be done in
San
> Francisco.
> >
> > Based on the expertise you will be retaining and the time
> required to read the Oakland Proposition Z and provide you with a
> legal opinion I am estimating some 2-3 hours time minimum. You
should
> expect to pay them some $800 - $1,000 as retainer for their written
> legal opinion.
> >
> > Based on the fact the LPSF does not have such a measure before
it
> or approved such a measure I would have to ask you to please leave
> the LPSF out of your discussion.
> >
> > Please use your membership in any of the marijuana groups you
may
> belong to where you have an Executive Committee position or
something
> similar.
> >
> > Or better yet present yourself as an individual who is active
in
> such matters and that you are asking for a legal opinion to present
> to such groups and you will pay the appropriate legal retainer fee
> for such services.
> >
> > As far as your personal opinion as to the attorneys snowing us.
I
> presume you are referring to the Police Intiative and the problem
of
> writing an initiative which is not valid because it is an
> administrative initiative.
> >
> > All three firms said the same thing. When you have three firms
> saying the same thing I DO NOT believe it is a snow job.
> >
> > On the matter of fees.You are comparing apples and oranges by
> comparing a fee from a criminal attorney for a relatively simple
> prostitution case versus a fee from experienced initiative attorney.
> >
> > Experienced attorneys with specific legal expertise based on
some
> 15 - 25 years or more of specific legal work can and do charge
$300 -
> $350 per hour or more. The range of fees were the same at all three
> firms. All three also would adjust their fees to work we could
> perform against work they would perform.
> >
> > There were no surprises there for the fees charged. Since I
also
> work for an attorney I can state those fees are reasonable and
> competitive for the specific services being provided. The estimates
> of total fees are based on the estimates of total time required for
> the full range of services.
> >
> > As a Libertarian and based on statements you have made in
various
> e-mails I am certain you are aware of free market competition. In
> other words, you pay for what you get. If you want expertise you
pay
> for it.
> >
> > Now most importantly on the likelihood of a Police Initiative
> which can direct the police department in assigning personnel.
> >
> > This is the web site for the City and Union agreements known as
> Memorandum Of Understanding. It has all 46 some City/union
agreements
> in PDF files.
> >
> > [http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhr_index.asp?id=30852](http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhr_index.asp?id=30852)
> >
> > Go down to the PDF agreement for the Police Officers
Association
> and read the whole Agreement. This is something I recommend
everyone
> on this list also do. I have done so and it gives some very strong
> insight into how the SFPD assigns personnel by union agreement.
> >
> > Starchild - just for you - lucky guy you.
> >
> > After reading the Agreement and noting how the Police
Department
> assigns personnel based on the Union Agreement please write out a
> simple essay as to how a Police Initiative WOULD NOT void that
> agreement.
> >
> > Or cause that Agreement to be re-written based on how the City
> and the POA union agreed to allow the assignment of police officers
> to their various duties which would not require a new agreement to
be
> negotiated requiring the POA to place the new agreement before the
> membership for approval.
> >
> > A simple 500 or word less essay should do the trick. Okay???
> >
> > Please note the same would apply to a salary cap initiative and
> in that case apply to all 46 City/Union agreemenst. This is why the
> time and fees would be substantially greater than a simple police
> initative. $6,000 -$7,000 vs. estimated $15,000 - $20,000.
> >
> > After you have done the essay thing and also agreed to leave
the
> LPSF out on the Marijuana thing and stop trying to beat a dead
horse
> on the Police Initiative I'll be delighted to give you the
attorneys
> to talk to.
> >
> > So long as you agree not to bring up the police initiative at
> these firms as I am certain at some time in the future we may
> actually retain the services of any one of those firms.
> >
> > I personally do not want to see the waters muddied creating
> difficulties in engaging any one of those firms services when we
> would need to do so.
> >
> > No matter how many people think there are too many attorneys
the
> SF world of attorneys is small. Everyone knows everyone. The LPSF
> does not need to get a flaky reputation among the attorneys we may
> need for help in the future.
> >
> > I an certain you can appreciate this simple request and the
> reasons for this request.
> >
> > You are as always free to call on the firms any time you wish
as
> a private individual this is your right as a Libertarian - free
> assocaition and all that good stuff.
> >
> > Thank You For Your Considerations In Ths Matter
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild <sfdreamer@> wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > Can you send the contact info for the attorneys you spoke with?
I'd
> > like to ask them whether something like Oakland's Measure Z,
which
> > passed in 2004 would fly here, and if not, why not. Measure Z
> made "law
> > enforcement related to private adult cannabis (marijuana) use,
> > distribution, sale, cultivation and possession, the City's lowest
> law
> > enforcement priority; (2) to lobby to legalize, tax and regulate
> > cannabis for adult private use, distribution, sale, cultivation
and
> > possession" (see
> [http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/alm/meas/Z/](http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/alm/meas/Z/) ).
> >
> > I think we ought to be able to model our measure on this without
> too
> > much difficulty. Maybe it wouldn't be as specific as we'd like,
but
> > we'd have the potential for getting something technically binding
> on
> > the books. We could charge the Police Commission with
> implementation
> > rather than creating a new commission as Measure Z did, and
mandate
> > that they automatically get .05% of the Police Department's
budget
> or
> > something (they need more funding to reign in the police anyway).
> > Mandatory set-asides are certainly legal as ballot measures -- it
> was
> > tried in 2004 in SF (albeit unsuccessfully in that case) with
> > Proposition L, the "Save Our Theaters" initiative.
> >
> > Note that Measure Z apparently *is* being implemented in Oakland
> (see
> > [http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/061505measurez.cfm](http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/061505measurez.cfm) ) despite the
> Oakland
> > City Attorney's office arguing before the election that it was
> > unconstitutional and illegal (scroll down to read "Arguments
> Against
> > Measure Z" on the SmartVoter page link above). I think these
> attorneys
> > are snowing us. And asking way too much money to boot. Do you
trust
> > Louise Renne's office? I don't. She's a political insider. If I
can
> > find a lawyer to file pre-trial motions and defend me in court
for
> > $3000, we ought to be able to do way better than the costs being
> cited
> > for our initiative. The translations should cost little or
nothing -
> -
> > we have connections we've used before to people who speak Spanish
> and
> > Chinese.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Ron Getty wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Starchild;
> > >
> > > At the last LPSF meeting I discussed the fact that all the
> attorneys I
> > > spoke with were very direct on the fact that based on court
> rulings
> > > and case law the Police Initiative could not be an
administrative
> > > initiative. Therefore the Initiative could not be made binding.
> > >
> > > The Initiative could say we would like this to happen but we
> could not
> > > demand that this happen.
> > >
> > > Secondly, based on a very recent Federal District court ruling
> the
> > > full Initiative Petition circulars and all material filings
would
> be
> > > required to be done in Hispanic and Chinese. This is an
> additional
> > > incurred cost for translation services above the standard legal
> costs
> > > of qualifying the ballot initiative and all additional filing
> > > requirements.
> > >
> > > It was decided to change the Initiative to a Petition simply
> because
> > > there would be no translation costs, no legal fees and the
> Petition
> > > could be circulated by anyone and signed by any San Francisco
> > > resident. There would be no voter registration requirements for
> signer
> > > or circulators.
> > >
> > > The second priority initiative is the Salary Cap Initiative.
This
> > > would require a Charter amendment. This is based on the fact
that
> > > there are some 46 union Memorandum of Understandings between
the
> City
> > > and various unions. Go to this web site at SFGov for copies of
> those
> > > agreements.
> > >
> > > [http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhr_index.asp?id=30852](http://www.sfgov.org/site/dhr_index.asp?id=30852)
> > >
> > > Read any or try the Police Department on. It makes for very
> > > interesting reading.
> > >
> > > Secondly there were previous Ballot propositions approved by
the
> > > voters directing how salaries were determined by various
> averaging
> > > methods.
> > >
> > > Each of these propositions and union agreements would have to
be
> > > specifically addressed in the Circulating Initiative. This
means
> it is
> > > absolutely crucial that legal counsel be hired to write the
> Initiative
> > > because of these pre-existing laws.
> > >
> > > Total guesstimated costs for just the legal aspects would be an
> easy
> > > $15,000 - $20,000 plus translation costs. To cover the minimum
of
> some
> > > 50,000 verified registered voter signatures you would have to
> collect
> > > some 75,000 - 80,000 signatures.
> > >
> > > To place this on the November ballot this would have to wrapped
> up by
> > > July 10 which is the final date for submission of signatures
for
> > > verification for placing on the ballot.
> > >
> > > We as an organization do not have this type of money or
> membership. To
> > > get help we would need the other political parties and
community
> > > groups for bodies and dollars.
> > >
> > > It was determined a Petition process would make this possible
by
> > > presenting tens of thousands of signatures to the Mayor
> Supervisors
> > > the Police Chief and the Police Commission as a very viable
> > > alternative to a costly Police Initiative process.
> > >
> > > This whole Petition process is set to be discussed at the next
> LPSF
> > > meeting but as Marcy suggested creating a framework before hand
> would
> > > be advisable.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > > Starchild wrote:
> > >
> > > Marcy,
> > >
> > > I am very confused. All this time you've been saying that you
> don't
> > > any "resolutions," only measures with teeth. But now you're
> excited
> > > about circulating a petition which won't even result in putting
a
> > > measure on the ballot?
> > >
> > > A resolution that will be voted on by the electorate will...
> > >
> > > (a) be a lot more newsworthy
> > > (b) be more apt to be taken seriously by the politicians
> > > (c) be seen by a lot more people, and
> > > (d) do more to put the LPSF on the map and make our actions
part
> of the
> > > public record
> > >
> > > ...than a petition that won't.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is we stick with the plan to put a measure on the
> ballot
> > > (and hopefully get it passed). Write it to make it as binding
as
> we
> > > legally can, and go with that. If it turns out that we really
> can't say
> > > *anything* about police priorities that will be legally binding
> > > (something I find difficult to believe but will try to do some
> more
> > > research on), then let's go with our second priority initiative.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > Ron has a great list with which to start our Police
Redeployment
> > > > plans. I am hoping that after our campaing Pam from KPOO
will
> no
> > > > longer be asking if Libertarianism is "part of that whole
> socialist
> > > > thing" (see Derek's post on Discussion Group). The campaing
> could be
> > > > an effective vehicle to positively introduce ourselves, and
make
> > > > mention of our political candidates, as well as a chance to
> > > > contribute to the efforts of cutting down violent crime in San
> > > > Francisco.
> > > >
> > > > I would be pleased to assist in this campaign once we get
> around to
> > > > formulating some concrete plan of action.
> > > >
> > > > Marcy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else : -- )
> > > > >
> > > > > To answer your question this is some of what could take
> place to
> > > > garner seventy eleven hundreds of dozens of thousands of
Police
> > > > Redeployment Petition signatures:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Contact the respective Chairs: Democratic -
Republican -
> Green
> > > > parties and present a copy of the authorized version of the
> > > > Redeployment Petition.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. With the approval of the respective party chairs get
on
> the
> > > > meeting agenda of the next available County Party meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Get the Redeployment Petition approved by County Party
> > > > membership. Get signatures at the meeting. Get volunteer
> Petition
> > > > circulators.
> > > > >
> > > > > Due to the fact voter registration is not required just
> residency
> > > > in San Francisco this opens the Petiton to all San
Franciscans
> and
> > > > any San Franciscan to circulate a Petition.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Get a definitive list of all Community Organizations
and
> do
> > > > the same as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Get a definitive list of all Local Political Party
> > > > Organizations and do all of the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Get a definitive list of Community Cultural
> Organizations and
> > > > do the same as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. Get a definitive list of all local Religious
> Organizations and
> > > > do the same as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8. Get a definitive list of all local Business
> Organizations and
> > > > do the same as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > 9. Get a definitive list of all local Community Events
and
> do
> > > > tables
> > > > >
> > > > > 10. Take ads out in newspapers with copy of the Petition
and
> > > > place for signatures
> > > > >
> > > > > 11. Do neighborhood door hanger campaigns with copy of
> petition
> > > > and place for signature.
> > > > >
> > > > > 12. Do web site with place to download signable petition -
> > > > circulate the web site.
> > > > >
> > > > > 13. Write letters to Editors and newspaper reporters
about
> the
> > > > petition.
> > > > >
> > > > > 14. Petition local newstalk radio shows about the
petition
> and
> > > > getting air time.
> > > > >
> > > > > 15. Get local TV stations to give air time on local talk
> shows
> > > > about petition and police.
> > > > >
> > > > > 16. Button hole all the Supervisors by people in
> Supervisors
> > > > districts.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just a sample of what could or should maybe
> possibly done
> > > > to get the Petitoion out there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please read the UPGRADED - Redeployment Petiton it is
> posted on
> > > > the Activists List Under Files.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > >
> > > > > "Amarcy D. Berry" wrote:
> > > > > Dear Ron,
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, thank you for your immense positiveness and
> spirit of
> > > > > cooperation...and for so quickly morphing the initiative
into
> a
> > > > > petition.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would seem to me that starting with a petition, which
does
> not
> > > > > call for our committing to raise $8,000 by May or June,
seems
> more
> > > > > appropriate for us, given our current peoplepower.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the petition as is. But you can guess what my
> suggestion
> > > > > would be: remove "lack of concern", and substitute with
> something
> > > > > like "It has become necessary for the People of the City
and
> County
> > > > > of San Francisco to communicate to the Mayor, the Board of
> > > > > Supervisors......(etc) the People's need to see our Police
> > > > Department
> > > > > re-delploy its resources to concentrate on major
> crimes......etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am wondering if there is interest to have by the next
> meeting a
> > > > > list of places to go and people to meet, as well as a time
> line to
> > > > > accomplish the events. I realize we do not have a formal
> committee
> > > > > in place yet, but I personally see no reason why any and
all
> of us
> > > > > could not start offering suggestions. I am thinking that
we
> might
> > > > > want to use election time, coming up pretty soon in June,
when
> > > > people
> > > > > are attuned to politics to do some petitioning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Everyone;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At yesterdays LPSF meeting due to a variety of factors
it
> was
> > > > > determined that the Police Initiative should be re-born as
a
> Police
> > > > > Petition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the factors involved:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Money. As at its most basic needs it would require at
> least
> > > > > $6,000 and with the now required translation in two
additional
> > > > > languages possibly another $1,000.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gathering at least 16,000 signatures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meeting all the legal standards to qualify the
Initiative
> for
> > > > the
> > > > > ballot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitively being able to obtain co-operation of the
> other
> > > > major
> > > > > parties and community groups to assist in funding and
petition
> > > > > circulating.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having LPSF members who could do the necessary work in
> > > > > introducing the proposed initiative to the other parties and
> > > > > community groups.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Police Initiative by law could not be binding and
> would
> > > > only
> > > > > be a non-binding public policy statement. It could not be an
> > > > > administrative initiative which would specifically direct
the
> > > > > activities of police personnel by law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore it was voted to make the Police Initiative a
> Police
> > > > > Petition. All activities and further discussion on this to
be
> done
> > > > at
> > > > > the May 13 LPSF meeting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have attached a copy of a sample of what could be
said
> which
> > > > > could then be presented as a petition. I have also included
a
> > > > partial
> > > > > list of the activities which would be required of LPSF
> members to
> > > > > gather enough signatures as a Petition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Petition is for discussion purposes it is not
> definitive.
> > > > The
> > > > > LPSF would have to concur as a group to approve doing the
> petition
> > > > > process with an appointed select committee to formulate the
> > > > petition
> > > > > and make it happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the activities to be considered which would
> require
> > > > > participation would include:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Presenting to other political parties and community
> groups for
> > > > > their support and the circulation of the petitions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Publicity campaigns in newspapers or radio newstalk
shows.
> > > > Doing
> > > > > mailers - postcards - newsletters - telephone campaigns -
> fund
> > > > > raising and any other activity which would garner support
and
> > > > > signatures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once enough signatures had been gathered say at least
> 10,000 -
> > > > > 15,000 then presenting to the Mayor and the Board of
> Supervisors
> > > > and
> > > > > Chief of Police and Police Commission etc etc etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > U s government grant California Activist
> California
> > > > politics
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of
> > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
SPONSORED LINKS
[U s government grant](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=FOd4qdqU12L0kWrsKhuYhQ) [California](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=5g8CqXOcIKJM2EAreG5g9A) [Activist](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=XEaAErK74HG3MSPO5TzVNg)
[California politics](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=9hSbXY7OkkWB6WjvI2ajBg)