Help Me Convince The Supreme Court To Reverse Their Absurd $30 Tabs Ruling – Email All 9 Judges Now!
It’s not over — the fight continues!
At the outset of Seattle’s lawsuit against our $30 Tabs Initiative, AG Bob Ferguson was sabotaging our defense. That’s when King County Judge Marshall Ferguson sided with the opponents of the initiative.
It was only due to superstar attorney Stephen Pidgeon’s heroic efforts and brilliant briefing that convinced Judge Ferguson to reverse himself and uphold I-976.
Now that we’ve filed our Motion for Reconsideration, help me convince the supreme court to reverse their absurd $30 Tabs ruling.
For background, see here: https://permanentoffense.com/king-county-judge-marshall-fergusons-decision-to-uphold-i-976-shows-the-supreme-court-is-corrupt-he-did-his-job-the-9-high-court-judges-did-not/ and here: https://permanentoffense.com/our-attorney-stephen-pidgeon-filed-motion-for-reconsideration-w-supreme-court-on-30-tabs-ruling/
Email all 9 judges directly — it’s easy so do it RIGHT NOW:
In the “To:” line of your email to them, COPY AND PASTE this:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Barbara.email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
In the Subject line, COPY AND PASTE this:
HERE’S MY MESSAGE TO ALL 9 JUDGES ON STATE SUPREME COURT: attorney Stephen Pidgeon’s legal brief shows voters were not confused (voters pamphlet contained wealth of information) and it provides additional court citations that convinced King County Judge Marshall Ferguson to uphold our $30 Tabs Initiative. Read this, absorb it, and rule in favor of our Motion for Reconsideration.
In the body of the email, COPY AND PASTE this (or write something yourself to convince them):
With our Motion for Reconsideration filed, ALL 9 OF YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO DO JUST THAT: reconsider your decision on I-976.
With such an overwhelming vote in favor of the initiative (60% statewide, not counting Seattle) and such overwhelming opposition to your original ruling (KOMO: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULING OF $30 CAR TABS? 30% YES, 70% NO), I demand that all 9 of you consider what our attorney Stephen Pidgeon put in his original brief:
If there is ambiguity in the enactment, the court may examine the statements in the voters’ pamphlet in order to determine the voters’ intent. Thorne, 129 Wash.2d at 763, 921 P.2d 514; see Lynch v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 19 Wash.2d 802, 812-13, 145 P.2d 265 (1944); see Biggs, 119 Wash.2d at 134, 830 P.2d 350 (if there is ambiguity, extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, may be used to determine legislative intent).
The voters pamphlet sets forth the text of the Initiative, an Explanatory Statement, a Fiscal Impact Statement, and Arguments For and Against. Voters are presumed to have read and understood the statements in the Voters Pamphlet, and the Voters Pamphlet is admissible to determine the disclosures made regarding the Initiative.
COMMENT: The 1944 case cited by attorney Stephen Pidgeon is hugely significant. There was a wealth of information about I-976 in the voters pamphlet (the initiative’s text, Explanatory Statement, a Fiscal Impact Statement, and Arguments For and Against). No one was confused. His brief continues:
Speculation as to Voter Understanding is Unlawful
In the case Sane Transit v. Sound Transit, 151 Wash.2d 60, 85 P.3d 346 (2004), the Court considered the principle that acts approved by the people are construed by focusing on the language of the proposal as the average informed voter would read it. See Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 205, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000); State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Wash. Educ. Ass’n, 140 Wash.2d 615, 637, 999 P.2d 602 (2000); City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d 91, 98, 758 P.2d 480 (1988). The Court concluded as follows:
Sane Transit would have us ignore the language of the measure (emphasis added) and attempt to construe the measure based on extrinsic documents sent to the voters which the average informed voter may or may not have read. An inquiry into the voter’s subjective understanding of what he or she thought he or she was enacting is a task we will not undertake. See generally Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wash.2d at 205, 11 P.3d 762 (inquiry into the voters’ intent will not occur where the text of an initiative is unambiguous); City of Spokane, 111 Wash.2d at 97, 758 P.2d 480 (the court will avoid entering the realm of pure speculation about what individual voters were thinking, nor will it assume voters do not read or understand the measure presented to them). We have previously indicated that where the ballot title would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, [bold added] proper notice, as required by article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution, has been given to the voter about what he or she is deciding. Wash. Fed’n of State Employees v. State, 127 Wash.2d 544, 555, 901 P.2d 1028 (1995). See Sane Transit v. Sound Transit, 151 Wash.2d 60, 85 P.3d 346, 351-52 (2004).
COMMENT: So, when it came to an earlier ballot measure supporting Sound Transit, the Court said they wouldn’t strike it down based on what got mailed out to voters – they’d only base it on the language of the ballot measure itself. There’s no allegation the text of I-976 was unclear, only speculation that voters may have been confused by the AG’s ballot title. But that is contrary to their previous ruling! As King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson wrote: “The ballot title does not mislead … a plain reading of I-976’s ballot title indicates to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the initiative, and gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act. WASAVP, 174 Wn.2d at 660. … Liberally construing I-976’s ballot title in favor of the initiative, as the Court must, the Court concludes that it satisfies the subject-in-title rule.”
It’s infuriating that the voters have clearly demanded $30 tabs — for the 3rd time — and yet all 9 of you took it away by ignoring your oath of office, ignoring Judge Ferguson’s well-reasoned ruling (https://tinyurl.com/976CourtRuling), and ignoring I-976’s clear language (https://permanentoffense.com/to-rob-us-of-our-vote-and-steal-our-30-tabs-all-9-judges-on-the-seattle-supreme-court-had-to-ignore-the-clear-language-of-i-976/.
Here’s your chance to remedy your mistake.
— END —
SEND THEM YOUR EMAIL RIGHT AWAY.
It’s not over — the fight for $30 Tabs continues.
This is why the AG’s lawsuit asks for a lifetime ban on all my future political activity.
I really need your help to survive this. If they take me out, who will dare challenge them? I am so incredibly grateful for your prayers and support during this very difficult time for me and my family.
Please help by donating to my legal defense fund here:
In addition, we’re still working really hard to deliver $30 Tabs.
We’re asking folks to donate to our PAC so we can get paid back. Also, donations to our PAC will pay for attorney Stephen Pidgeon’s “Motion for Reconsideration.” Please help these efforts by donating online:
Credit card/Paypal: permanentoffense.com/donate
PO Box 6151
Olympia, WA, 98507
I love you all.