Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Legal Challenge 8-10-12

Legal Challenge 8-10-12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Published by Mitch Zak

More info:

Published by: Mitch Zak on Aug 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/10/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 JUDGE CHANGES FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS BY PROP 34PROPONENTS…CITES OTHERS AS “HYPERBOLE” AND “OPINION”FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECONTACT:Mitch ZaFriday, August 10, 2012(916) 448-5802@MitchZak 
(SACRAMENTO, CALIF) – Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, a statewideCo-Chair of Californians for Justice and Public Safety – No on 34 – today issued thefollowing statement following the decision by Sacramento Superior Court Justice Timothy Frawley to change false and misleading statements made by Proposition 34proponents in official ballot arguments as part of their campaign to eliminateCalifornia’s death penalty. Nearly every major public safety organization in the stateopposes Prop 34 because it will embolden criminals and endanger California.
“We appreciate Judge Frawley's thoughtful decision, which upholds our position that the Proponents of Prop 34 are waging a deceptive campaign in an effort to eliminatethe Death Penalty.Convincing a Judge to change ballot statements is an extraordinary action. JudgeFrawley agreed with us that Prop 34 proponents' attempt to suggest that themeasure's $100 million appropriation was a result of alleged savings is false. Herightly acknowledged that, if Prop 34 passes, $100 million will be taken from theState General fund, regardless of whether or not any money is actually saved. Therewere other assertions by the proponents in their ballot arguments that the judgelabeled as ‘hyperbole” or “opinion’. Translation - their assertions are exaggeratedclaims or opinions.California voters deserve better. Consumers must get accurate and honest disclosureof what is contained in the products they buy, or District Attorneys can prosecute themanufacturers for consumer fraud. Said another way, they can be prosecuted for false advertising and unfair business practices.Sadly, there are no standards for honesty and accuracy for special interests and political campaigns. If we did, Prop 34 proponents and those who have long sought to eliminate the death penalty wouldn’t get to use hyperbole or be allowed to misleadby exaggeration. It should be noted that Prop 34 supporters did not challenge asingle statement by our side. That's because we stick to the facts and respect voterswho have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed the Death Penalty as a just sentence in cases where a murder has been committed with special and horrificcircumstances. Never, in the arguments made by those who support repealing thedeath penalty do you hear them talk about the victims of the killers they seek tosave.Well that stops today. Of course the murdered victims cannot speak, but there arevictims who can. They are the families of murdered victims that lost a loved one at the hands of a cold-blooded killer. Our campaign will give them a voice to speak out 
Paid for by Californians for Justice and Public Safety- ID# 1346266455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600Sacramento, CA 95814www.waitingforjustice.net

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->