CONTACTS 
0201 - Superior Court of State of Californ  415 554 4170 fax or 800...
020101 - Hon. Wallace P. Douglas; Assistant Presiding Judge
020102 - Department XX

SUBJECTS
Jury Duty
Markets V. Fair Allocation
Long Way Around Short Way There
Process v. Prescription Male Female Binary Perspective on Values

0806 -    ..
0807 - Summary/Objective
0808 -
080801 - Follow up ref SDS 22 0000, ref SDS 21 0000.
080802 -
080803 - Appeared for Jury duty.  Assigned to a jury pool in a rent control
080804 - case.  Plaintiff tenant was evicted from a rental unit and claims
080805 - entitlement to damages because the dominant motive for eviction was
080806 - not for the landlord to occupy the unit.  Plaintiff must prove that
080807 - the dominant intent was to raise rents, and that personal use of the
080808 - unit was only a secondary intent of the landlord.  Defendant landlord
080809 - maintains all the rules were followed, and this justifies a finding of
080810 - no liability.  Was selected as an alternate juror and must report for
080811 - the first day of trial beginning on 000418.  Trial is expected to last
080812 - 2 - 3 weeks.
080813 -
080814 -
080815 -
080816 -
080817 -
0809 -
0810 -
0811 - Administration
0812 -
081201 -  ..
081202 - Arrived at Court and Signed In
081203 -
081204 - Juror ID:  200310516
081205 -
081206 - Juror Group:  213
081207 -
081208 -     Instructions said to report at 0900...
081214 -
081215 - Took a cab, cost $9 with a $1 tip.
081216 -
081217 - Jury room attendant said jurors pay for their transportation.
081218 -
081219 -
081220 -
081221 -
081222 -  ..
081223 - Assigned to Court #608 for a Rent Control Dispute
081224 - Dominate Intent to Raise Rents v. Compliance with Rent Control Rules
081225 -
081226 -
081235 -
0813 -
0814 -
0815 - 0939
0816 -
081601 - An initial panel of 24 jurors was called based on random selection by
081602 - computer from the entire pool of about 50 people.  I was not among
081603 - the initial 24 jurors.
081604 -
081605 - In this case, a tenant was evicted from a rental unit and claims this
081606 - violated rent control rules.  Plaintiff's counsel explained the
081607 - violation rests on finding that the "dominant" intent of the landlord
081608 - was to raise the rent, rather than to occupy the unit.  If the jury
081609 - finds that the landlord's dominant intent was to occupy the unit, and
081610 - that raising the rent was a secondary intent, plaintiff loses the
081611 - case.
081612 -
081613 - Peremptory challenges excused 12 people, so the three alternate
081614 - jurors had to be selected from the those of us in the remaining pool.
081615 -
081616 - When questioned about my opinion on the rule of law at issue, I
081617 - explained background in construction and as an arbitrator.  Cited
081618 - residence at a rental complex where these issues have been strongly
081619 - pursued by the Tenants Association for the past 30 years.
081620 -
081621 -
081622 -
081623 -  ..
081624 - Long Way Around, Short Way There
081625 - Judging Motives of Voluntary Agreements Slows March of Civilization
081626 - Political Force That Disrupts Markets Harms Those Being "Helped"
081627 -
081628 - Noted my lack of support for efforts to use political force for
081629 - disrupting free market access to goods and services, here, apartment
081630 - rental space, in order to benefit tenants who would be dislocated at
081631 - the expense of those willing to pay more.
081632 -
081633 - Objection arises from the proposition that forceful disruption of
081634 - markets ignores the rule of civilization:  the...
081635 -
081636 -                long way around is the short way there,
081637 -
081638 - ...and thereon harms everyone because it reduces incentive to
081639 - innovate, build, improve and maintain facilities, and to increase
081640 - earnings, since working harder is not adequate to achieve objectives.
081641 - Substituting political for free market forces dislocates resources
081642 - from increasing earnings, which increases taxes for helping needy
081643 - people, and instead directs time and effort toward gaining political
081644 - advantage, which thereby reduces resources for helping the
081645 - disadvantaged.  Rent control requires people making contributions that
081646 - are highly valued to live farther away, and thus waste time commuting,
081647 - because people making less valued contributions are subsidized in
081648 - occupying local property that permits efficient allocation of time.
081649 -
081650 - Macro analysis does not overlook that any given case deviates from the
081651 - general rule.  No solution in a complex environment of 300M people is
081652 - perfect.  A free society banks on a free market to balance differences
081653 - in desire, talent, industry and luck, and strives to reduce intrusion
081654 - of legal mandates, because blunt instruments harm the aims they seek
081655 - to achieve, i.e., access to goods and services, and incentives for
081656 - work and innovation in producing more goods and services to reduce
081657 - prices.  This is not to say that business people are "well motivated."
081658 - The aim of policy must be to improve the community despite motives of
081659 - individuals.  Emphasis must therefore be on conduct, because motives
081660 - are organic, occurring along a continuum, and are mixed, reflecting
081661 - the diversity of society and living organisms, in particular human
081662 - intelligence, set out in POIMS. ref OF 1 0561
081663 -
081664 - Plaintiff's counsel asked prospective jurors again and again during
081665 - voir dire whether the law is "fair"?
081666 -
081667 - That is irrelevant.
081668 -
081669 - First, whether fair or not, the law must be enforced in order to
081670 - provide an objective standard that can be relied upon in conducting
081671 - daily life.  Second, what seems fair today, will be "unfair" tomorrow
081672 - for a different set of circumstances, with the result that "fairness"
081673 - can never be achieved, in the same way that a "decent" standard of
081674 - living is a constantly moving target.  Thus, "fairness" obviates the
081675 - need for objective standards of conduct, and so cannot be the basis of
081676 - judgement.  The requirement for equality of treatment under law, is a
081677 - useful application of "fairness."  This, however, did not seem to be
081678 - the application in questions put to jurors today.
081679 -
081680 -
081681 -
081682 -  ..
081683 - Criminal Law Reduces Risks that Lead to Injury
081684 -
081685 - Another troubling concern in this case is plaintiff's request for the
081686 - jury to look beyond conduct to assess the defendant's motive.
081687 -
081688 - The Judge rightly pointed out today that criminal law has many such
081689 - requirements, in distinguishing intentional from accidental or
081690 - negligent conduct that causes harm, e.g., manslaughter and murder.
081691 -
081692 - Maintaining a safe community, and exercising retribution, may in
081693 - combination raise the bar sufficient to require subjective evaluation
081694 - of intent, despite the high risk of error.  This risk redounds to
081695 - those called to account for conduct that causes injury, and so helps
081696 - restrain risky conduct, by saying to all of us....
081697 -
081698 -      "Be extra careful in conduct that may cause injury, because you
081699 -      may get ensnarled in the murky world of people playing god to
081700 -      assess your intent."
081701 -
081702 - Thus, in the criminal setting the indefinite risk of motive being
081703 - incorrectly assessed performs a community service, as a risk
081704 - management device.
081705 -
081706 -
081707 -  ..
081708 - Civil Law Promotes Risk Taking to Lift Civilization by Innovation
081709 -
081710 - Judging intent to restrain conduct that causes injury, however, does
081711 - not work well for civil actions where law intends to promote commerce
081712 - and risk taking in order to raise the standard of living for all, and
081713 - provide for a strong defense against those who would threaten that
081714 - common bond.  People need to be able to quantify risks against
081715 - prospective returns in order to take action that helps everyone by
081716 - adding to the store of goods and services that reduces prices for
081717 - everyone.  Making "intent" a risk, beyond compliance with procedure,
081718 - which can be established by the record, breaches the covenant between
081719 - government and citizen that says...
081720 -
081721 -
081722 -       "Work hard and play by the rules, and you will be rewarded."
081723 -
081724 - ..
081725 - Welch v. State of California, 139 CArd 586, may be an example.
081726 -
081727 - There, the judge found a material misrepresentation in project bid
081728 - plans, but held that the State was not liable for additional work and
081729 - consequential damages in the amount of $10M, because the contractor
081730 - had not relied on the mistake, despite the fact that the incorrect
081731 - information in the bid plans was entered in the contractor's estimate
081732 - calculations in the same manner used by other bidders, and further
081733 - that expert testimony showed the original bid was reasonable.  The
081734 - court ignored express language in the bid documents that submission of
081735 - a bid is conclusive evidence that the contractor investigated the
081736 - site, the plans and the specifications and was satisfied with
081737 - conditions to be encountered.  The judge ruled, similar to what seems
081738 - to be asked in this case, that regardless of evidence, plaintiff's
081739 - state of mind four (4) years earlier, based on testimony at trial,
081740 - showed there was no reliance on an actionable misrepresentation that
081741 - more than doubled the price of the work, and that it was only a
081742 - coincidence that the bid price was consistent with the error in the
081743 - project plans.
081744 -
081745 - Rulings of this character, unfortunately, leave open issues of motive
081746 - on many levels, and so public policy should strive to avoid, or at the
081747 - very least, de-emphasize state-of-mind "intent" issues, and instead
081748 - rely on the record where possible.
081749 -
081750 - The present case appears at the onset, based on counsel's questioning,
081751 - to involve a similar Delphic conclusion that boils down, not to what
081752 - the evidence shows, but something like...
081753 -
081754 -
081755 -      "Well, I just really feel, I mean it just seems to me..."
081756 -
081757 - ..
081758 - For example, plaintiff seems to be calling for jurors to
081759 - distinguish "dominant" intent, while the defendant asks the jury to
081760 - decide "intent" based on whether there was compliance with the rules
081761 - to occupy the unit for 12 months.
081762 -
081763 - What if both are true?
081764 -
081765 - A jury can find there was compliance with the rules, and yet, also,
081766 - find, using "Baker Street" reasoning (see Campbell reviewed on 900303,
081767 - ref SDS 1 5443), that there was intent to raise the rent, because that
081768 - is always an intent of anyone selling anything.  Plaintiff seems to be
081769 - asking for a state of mind finding regardless of defendant having
081770 - followed the rules.
081771 -
081772 - Finding for the plaintiff would in that case present an indefinite
081773 - risk that obviates the purpose of law.  Shouldn't people be okay by
081774 - following the rules, or is there an additional unquantifiable risk
081775 - that some jury may some day say, "Yeah, you followed the rules, but
081776 - you are still guilty of having politically incorrect intent?"  The
081777 - risk is unquantifiable because, like the contractor case, ref SDS 0
081778 - 4900, there is no way to prospectively establish compliance.  This
081779 - restrains commerce, innovation and risk taking, which harms everyone.
081780 - ref SDS 0 5538
081781 -
081782 -
081783 -
081784 -  ..
081785 - Great Nations Pay Dearly to Sustain Their Values
081786 - Like the Law, First Principles Grind Slowly, But Cannot Be Escaped
081787 -
081788 - Additionally, the present case seems to be a very small dispute that
081789 - is requiring a relatively huge expense including the time of a
081790 - talented judge, infrastructure, two excellent counsel with attendant
081791 - support costs, plus the cost of a jury that is likely suffering $10K+
081792 - per day in lost production, making total outlay of $20K to $30K per
081793 - day.  For a 2 - 3 week trial, and post-trial expense, the cost could
081794 - easily approach $150K to solve a dispute that only requires $3K - $5K
081795 - to help the plaintiff relocate in a satisfactory manner, so that both
081796 - parties can move on to their real agendas in life.
081797 -
081798 - We are left at this stage to guess that damages will include a penalty
081799 - of some kind, to restrain politically incorrect motives, and thereby
081800 - rise to the threshold that qualifies for trial in Superior Court.
081801 -
081802 - In one sense, it is a tribute to, and perhaps the mark of, a great
081803 - nation willing and able to sacrifice so great a treasure in helping
081804 - two people resolve relatively small differences that inevitably arise
081805 - in striving to enjoy the blessings of freedom preserved by the blood
081806 - of our men in battle.  So, while, yes, we all have a duty to soldier
081807 - on in this particular case, there is a larger duty to seek solutions
081808 - commensurate with the magnitude of problems.
081809 -
081810 - How long can profligacy endure, where the case at bar aims to restrain
081811 - activity that pays the bills, merely because one, undoubtedly good,
081812 - citizen is inconvenienced by an untimely relocation?  Americans are a
081813 - people who move often over a lifetime.  The issue is not whether
081814 - someone should move, but only when.  This is addressed by the parties
081815 - in a contract that expires periodically, permitting mutual
081816 - consideration for change. A tenant is free to move at will, subject
081817 - to terms of the contract.  While we have yet to hear evidence, what
081818 - seems to be at issue here is a decision by the landlord not to renew a
081819 - rental agreement, and the tenant claims entitlement to continued
081820 - occupancy, despite lack of agreement.  Where is the balancing right
081821 - for the landlord that is claimed by the tenant to move at will?
081822 -
081823 - During voir dire the Court Clerk, who has a personal computer
081824 - connected to the Internet on the desk next to the Judge's bench, was
081825 - kind enough to report that today the stock market suffered the highest
081826 - one day loss in history, perhaps serving notice that first principles
081827 - cannot be ignored without eventual consequences.
081828 -
081829 -
081830 -  ..
081831 - Assignment as Alternate Juror
081832 -
081833 - I was later selected as alternate juror #1, and so have to return on
081834 - Tuesday, 000418 0900.
081835 -
081836 - The Judge said I could use my computer to take notes, and he will try
081837 - to seat me in row 1 seat 1 or row 2 seat 8, so I am near an electrical
081838 - outlet for the computer.   While leaving the court for a lunch break,
081839 - I thanked the Judge for consideration in permitting use of SDS, and
081840 - mentioned Justice Mosk's review of SDS on 911130 finding strong
081841 - support for legal practice. ref SDS 2 P15J
081842 -
081843 - We discussed briefly the project at SRI to create a DKR capability for
081844 - improving general knowledge work, which SDS supports.  Jury duty to
081845 - hear evidence and make judgements is a core aspect of knowledge work,
081846 - as noted earlier by Justice Mosk.
081847 -
081848 -    [On 000418 this worked out partially. ref SDS 23 6216
081849 -
081850 -    [On 001214 submitted letter thanking Judge Douglas for his
081851 -    consideration, and mentioned Doug Engelbart's award for the
081852 -    National Medal of Technology in advancing methods to enhance
081853 -    competency. ref SDS 24 0001
081854 -
081855 -
081856 -
081857 -
081858 -
081859 -
081860 -
081861 -
081862 -
0819 -