Dear 2UrbanGirls,
A civil case was filed in LA Superior Court July 21, 2021 by opposing candidate Andre Spicer. He then served Compton 2nd District Councilman Isaac Galvan six months later Dec. 28th. Service was made just one day before the deadline would expire for filing an election contest.
The civil suit by Spiced claims illegal votes were cast and seeks to overturn the June 2021 election won by one vote by Galvan.
The action by Andre Spicer is highly unusual as it violates normal court procedure and California Rules of Court 3.110 (b) which states a defendant must be served within 60 days of the original court filing. Galvan should have been served by Sep. 19 (60 days) but was instead served on Dec. 28, a total of 180 days or six months later.
If service is not done in a timely manner, a plaintiff must ask the court for an extension and the court may impose sanctions. No evidence exists of any action by Spicer until November 2021 so a request for an extension was not made in a timely manner. However, wide license by the judge permits a case to still go forward up to two years which appears to have occurred in this case. But it can also be argued the delay deprived Galvan of his constitutional rights and opportunity to request a dismissal due improper service.
A court usually does not schedule or move a case forward without a Proof of Service on record to make certain the other party was properly notified. This Superior Court under Judge Michelle Williams has held proceedings and actions almost monthly during the six month period between July and December 2021 with Galvan absent and prior to him being served. Only Spicer has appeared in court during the July-December six month time period which may open the judge up to allegations of bias.
Here are the court dates, before and after service:
BEFORE SERVICE
- 7/21/21 Civil Case Filed;
- 8/9/21 Notice of Case Management Conference by clerk.No Proof of Service to Galvan on record.
- 11/8/21 Case Management Statement made by Spicer.
- 11/15/21 Doc Event – Court Minute Order issued.
- 11/18 Hearing – Case Management Conference held by Judge.Only Spicer in Attendance. Galvan not served yet.
- 12/9 Notice of Case Management Conference. Galvan not served yet.
- 12/28 Galvan finally served by Councilwoman Michelle Chambers.
AFTER SERVICE
- 1/11/22 Case Management Statement by Spicer.
- 2/17/22 Hearing – Case Management Conference. Only Spicer present.
- 3/1 Court Trial Set to Start
It was also highly unusual for a sitting politician, Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, on December 28th, and on the city dime and time, served her fellow council member Galvan papers on behalf of Spicer while on the dais.
Galvan unaware for months due lack of service has never asked for a continuance yet the few reports coming from the former mayor’s spokeswoman, likes to blow “smoke and mirrors,” to infer Galvan, not Spicer, has been the one delaying the case despite the timeline you see above.
The Lawyer representing Spicer is Fred Woocher who was formerly the attorney for former Mayor now City Attorney Eric Perrodin in his past election contest in 2003 against former Mayor Omar Bradley. The judge in the case, Michelle Williams, is a 1993 graduate of Loyola Marymount Law School. She attended LMU at the same time as Eric Perrodin who graduated in 1994.
Questions are being asked about who is footing the attorney bill for Spicer or Galvan and whether citizens are paying for either defense.
A separate and parallel criminal case is also continuing in Superior Court with pressure being placed on the defendants including Dr. Jace Dawson to cut backroom deals with the single goal of getting Galvan.
No charges have yet been brought by the LA County District Attorney against Spicer for advertising and giving out “Ballots for Raffle Prizes” at an election event caught on video he held in May 2021.
Election code series 18251 states candidates who offer compensation for ballots may face charges of imprisonment from 16 months to three years. Complaints filed by residents alleging election cheating on Spicer’s part have been sidelined by the very same DA’s office obviously finds this counter situation problematic and highly embarrassing.
Compton residents are divided with some supporting Galvan and his new effort supportive of city reform and those support Spicer in his quest to take the seat. Still others support neither Spicer or Galvan and want a new election for the 2nd District to take place.
Sorry this was so long winded, but the people need to know.
Compton Archivist
14 Comments
Andre will not be appointed to the 2nd district seat….he is wasting time and money. And to have Michelle serve her colleague is totally insane!
So much is wrong about this🤣. The problem is people in Compton would rather be dead wrong In support of their own narrative than to actually get the facts. None of this is based on any fact. These dates were in regards to the filing deadlines NOT THE SERVING DEADLINES.
At the end of the fccn day if you’ll publish something like this, CHOCK FULL OF TYPOS, that you didn’t even check, what makes you think we think you ACTUALLY FACT CHECKED ANY OF THIS!
2brokegirls strike again🤣🤣🤣. Stop minding Comptons business! Especially if you’re just gonna print whatever. Completely wrong with no facts checked but go off girl! 💅🏿🤣
We publish community submissions as is. We will continue to report on issues without regard to what city the issue is located in, thanks.
What is written is dead on point. I will explain
PART ONE
Nina Ho,
You are sorely mistaken regarding your limited layman understanding regarding civil procedure, rules of court and election contest case law.
First of all, once Spicer filed his initial complaint on or about July 2021, began the clock to click regarding serving the opposing party, Galvan .All parties must adhere to the Rules of Court as follows:
Rules of Court
Rule 3.110. Time for service of complaint, cross-complaint, and response
(a) Application
This rule applies to the service of pleadings in civil cases except for collections cases under rule 3.740(a), unlawful detainer actions, proceedings under the Family Code, and other proceedings for which different service requirements are prescribed by law.
(b) Service of complaint
The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.
Here, the facts are as follows:
Spicer filed the initial complaint on or about July 2021. Spicer didn’t serve Galvan within the 60 days as prescribed by the Rules of Court which is a procedural error causing prejudice to Galvan given Spicer participated in multiple case management hearings with the court for several months without Galvan having knowledge of the election contest complaint filing. Hence, Spicer appeared before the court and Judge without providing the same deference to Galvan to appear because Spicer deliberately withheld service for six months to his detrimental reliance on the criminal case to seat him and outsed Galvan expeditiously without incurring legal expenses for an election contest which must be filed within six months of certification of election as prescribed by election code 16401.
As videoed, Spicer arranged for Galvan to be personally served by Council woman Michelle Chambers and former boss as Spicer served as Chambers liaison on December 28, 2021 during Council meeting.
Now, according to the Rules of Court when the moving party, Spicer has failed to serve within 60 days. The court shall follow the following:
(f) Failure to serve
If a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.
PART TWO
Additionally, to provide for proof of a procedural error which has severely prejudiced and injured Galvan as it is well established that:
Lawsuits begin with the filing of a complaint. ((Code of Civ. Proc., § 411.10.)) The complaint must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations, the deadline of which will vary based on the allegations of the lawsuit. After the complaint is filed, there are several deadlines that must be met.
Below is a general schedule of some (but not all) common deadlines for parties after an unlimited civil lawsuit is filed. Importantly, if you are the party that has initiated the lawsuit, you are the plaintiff. If you are the party being sued, you are usually called the defendant.
Plaintiff’s Deadlines.
Service of the summons and complaint: Plaintiffs must serve all named defendants and file a proof of service with the court within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. ((California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110, subd. (b).)) If the plaintiff fails to serve a party and has not received an extension from the court allowing them more time to serve the defendants, the plaintiff could be ordered by the court to show cause why service hasn’t occurred. ((California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110, subd. (f).)) A court can also impose sanctions on the plaintiff. ((Id.)) These sanctions, however, will usually not include dismissal of the complaint if the delay in serving the summons and complaint is less than two years—there are exceptions, however, for plaintiffs that fail to show any cause. ((Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 583.130, 583.410; Hawks v. Hawks (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1437 delay of less than two years in service of the summons and complaint is not a ground for dismissal under the only provision relied upon by the trial court.”].))
PART THREE
Accordingly, Election Code 16401. The contestant shall verify the statement of contest, as provided by Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and shall file it within the following times after either the declaration of the result of the election or the declaration of the results of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to Section 15560 by the body canvassing the returns thereof:
(a) In cases other than cases of a tie, where the contest is brought on any of the grounds mentioned in subdivision (c) of Section 16100, six months.
(b) In all cases of tie, 20 days.
(c) In cases involving presidential electors, 10 days.
(d) In all other cases, 30 days.
(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 122, Sec. 4. (AB 2023) Effective January 1, 2011.)
16402. When the reception of illegal votes is alleged as a cause of contest, it is sufficient to state generally that in one or more specified voting precincts illegal votes were given to the defendant, which, if taken from him or her, will reduce the number of his or her legal votes below the number of legal votes given to some other person for the same office.
Testimony shall not be received of any illegal votes, unless the contestant delivers to the defendant, at least three days before the trial, a written list of the number of illegal votes, and by whom given, which he or she intends to prove. No testimony may be received of any illegal votes except those that are specified in the list.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
16402.5. An election shall not be set aside on account of eligible voters being denied the right to vote, unless it appears that a sufficient number of voters were denied the right to vote as to change the result.
(Added by Stats. 2003, Ch. 173, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2004.)
16403. A statement of the grounds of contest shall not be rejected nor the proceedings dismissed by any court for want of form, if the grounds of contest are alleged with such certainty as will advise the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the election is contested.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
16404. The affidavit shall specify separately each precinct in which any irregularity or improper conduct took place, or in which a recount is demanded, and the nature of the mistake, error, misconduct, or other cause of contest, and the date of completion of the official canvass of the board of supervisors of the county last making the declaration.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
As you see Nina Jo, the law clearly states when and how service is to be perfected. Again, Galvan has been prejudice given he was shut out of the court hearing for several months without knowledge of an election contest case filing or the initial complaint filed in July 2021 while Spicer enjoyed several months of appearing before the judge. Galvan learned at time of personal service on December 28, 2021 the drop dead date to file for an election contest within six months.
Moreover, Galvan was denied asserting his claims within 60 days of Spicer filing the Initial complaint of election fraud committed by Spicer via holding a rally and raffles for voters to bring in their ballots to him personally and participating in raffle and or gift for exchange for voters ballots as prescribed by election code 18522.
PART FOUR
Corruption of Voters
Section 18522 – Unlawful payment, loan, or contribution to induce or reward voter
Cal. Elec. Code § 18522
Section 18522 – Unlawful payment, loan, or contribution to induce or reward voter
Neither a person nor a controlled committee shall directly or through any other person or controlled committee pay, lend, or contribute, or offer or promise to pay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration to or for any voter or to or for any other person to:
(a)Induce any voter to:
(1)Refrain from voting at any election.
(2) Vote or refrain from voting at an election for any particular person or measure.
(3) Remain away from the polls at an election.
(b) Reward any voter for having:
(1) Refrained from voting.
(2) Voted for any particular person or measure.
(3) Refrained from voting for any particular person or measure.
(4) Remained away from the polls at an election.
Any person or candidate violating this section is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years.
Here is the leading case that you can’t offer a raffle to turn in voter ballots which is election fraud. See case in Clovis CA, click on link:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article249518320.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjC2reswYz1AhUplWoFHXvqAWQQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw1KkCWpKV81-glRNqqvPBrZ
Here’s another case where EC 18522 akin to Spicer rally, give away and rally for voters vote and ballots
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-gas-tax-campaign-proposition-6-what-is-it-13364869.php
As well as Spicer fraudulent actions is mostly recognized as voter buying by hosting a rally with promises of gifts, raffles and etc for turning in voter ballots at his organized event
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3481262
Finally, Spicer can’t come to court seeking any type of relief when he committed election fraud himself by offering gifts and raffles for ballots turned in
Spicer hands are filthy and the Unclean Hands Doctrine applies. Use your common sense !
https://www.bc-llp.com/what-is-the-legal-doctrine-of-unclean-hands-in-california/
Wrong. First, if you read the court rules in a civil procedure, if you don’t serve within 60 days of the date of filing, the date the clock starts to tick, there’s a procedural error can be asserted by the opposing counsel in what is called an affirmative defense. Second, Dre’s lawsuit may be subject to be being thrown out itself if administered in a just courtroom by a just judge. Hum, why? Because you cannot come to court seeking any type of relief when you have committed election fraud yourself. That’s called the Unclean Hands Doctrine. Why? Election code 18522 states a candidate may not offer gifts, money or raffle tickets for ballots. Having to tie one of those ballots and votes specifically to being for Dre is not necessary; it is the act itself of the offer is not legal according to California State law applies to any candidate running for office. Third, your assertion people will do anything to advance their narrative is exactly correct. If the shoe fits as they say.
You have six months to file an election contest under Election Code 16401, but once you file as Spicer did on July 21st, the clock starts ticking and you have 60 days or until September 19th to serve Galvan. Then court hearings moving forward that can be attended and witnessed by both parties and not just one. Galvan was not served until six months later in December by Spicer in violation of Rules of Court 3.110 which addresses the timeline for service and states: “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” You either filed or you didn’t and Spicer did in…July…so the service clock starts ticking off 60 day to September 19th…not December 28th and 6 months. Having subsequent “Filing” conferences with a judge over the same six months with just Spicer in attendance without the presence or notification of the opposition party, Galvan, are not a thing. Show me where all these timelines about “filing” conferences is written along with the information on “service” conferences and timelines. Inquiring minds really want to know and read up. Tick, tock.
Nina Jo needs to just keep herself in L.A. and stay out of Compton’s business. She has nothing to do with Compton just another foot soldier for both Aja Brown, Michelle Chambers, and Spicer.
Has it ever came across one’s mind that, Spicers supposed “violation” wasn’t an actual violation at all? Had it been, wouldn’t he have been charged? This makes it sound like Spixer has someone pulling strings from behind. We should consider there wasn’t a violation but just gossip. If I’m not mistaken, the violation would have occurred IF he told them who to vote for. Collecting ballots are perfectly legal. Now it only makes sense that the ones who would drop off their ballot with Spicer, in all likelihood would have been voting for Spicer.
Everything in this article addresses facts with Galvan and speculation with Spicer. The audacity of the author…believing they have all the answers and the court, judge, and DA is wrong?? LOL
Wrong. The California Election.code 18522 that was violated does not permit a candidate to even offer money or prizes for ballots, period. This loop hole you created stating he didn’t tell people to vote for him, specifically, does not even apply. The DA has been notified but has not brought charges despite allegations of double standards. Besides after kicking off this case by tooting their horn in the LA TIMES, they would look stupid to then have to turnaround and arrest Spicer. But the community knows and sees.
Collecting ballots is perfectly legal. A corporation, business or individual encouraging people to go out and vote in general with no specific person or issue in mind is perfectly legal. But in California, according to state not federal law, the rules for a candidate is different. Any candidate even making an offer of gifts, prizes or raffle tickets, but wants to claim that it was, in general, a mundane call to vote, is specifically, guilty of election fraud subject to fines and imprisonment. It is illegal and called buying votes in layman’s terms which is why the rule exists on the books. It’s a slippery slope to just outright buying votes. The loophole of thinking a candidate’s actions are the same as those groups asking people to vote in general, or that the person being given the gift to bring the candidate their ballot must be proven to have voted for that specific candidate, is not only false but highly illegal in the State of California. As it should be so DA, District Attorney, and Judge, do your job and stop with the favoritism, double standards, and yes, false narratives.
I was enlighten when reading the article. So, Spicer alleged violated election laws too? I saw the video referenced in the article and thought it was unusual to offer in-exchange ballots for gifts. DA and judge, let’s look at both sides.
All election violations should be addressed and heard in the court of law. The courts cannot be selective and ignore selective election violations.; that is unfair and unconstitutional.
amen!!
This is selectively in addressing violations is why many voted Against the former District Attorney -Jackie Lacey …resulting unfortunately with Gascon winning that election.