Have SB277 activists asked the following questions?
1.) If Revolt Revoke Restore wants the best chance of prevailing in court why would T. Matthew Phillips grant the Attorney General an additional 30 days to prepare?
2.) Is being “courteous” really the best strategy against a well funded, under-prepared defendant?
The TRUTH shouldn’t be forced on people, but it should be available to people who need it. With that said, I have decided to share the CA Attorney General’s response to my recent Public Records Act request.
Yes, ladies and gentleman, the 30 day extension granted by Revolt Revoke Restore is legit, however, SB277 activists weren’t exactly told the entire truth. As you can see above, Deputy Attorney General Jonathan E. Rich’s e-mail to TMP does in fact read, “please email me PDF copies of the case assignment, civil cover sheet and other materials provided to you by the Court, since we were not served with them.”
Remember, it was Revoke Revolt Restore who told us the 30 day extension was, “as per standard ways for courteous litigation practices”, “Why does the state need an(y) additional days when presumably they have been preparing for a legal challenge against #SB277 for the last 11 months?”, “Because we have a hard hitting case!” and it was Revolt Revoke Restore attorney T. Matthew Phillips who told us, “In keeping with standards of courteousness, to which I always adhere, my office agreed to accept the Atty. Gen.’s polite request for more time.”
In reality, as you can see in the email exchange, the request for more time is more likely the result of the Attorney General not having been served as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.2236. (c) Service Of Petition.
“The petitioner or plaintiff must serve the petition or complaint on the Attorney General within three court days after the date of filing.” http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_2236