Attorney General 2nd request!

LOS ANGELES PUBLIC ACCESS

COALITION
(LAPAC)
David Hernandez, President
 P O Box 9158    No. Hollywood

91609    Tel 818-448-3403
 
 

 

January 3, 2009                                  VIA FAX  &  FEDERAL EXPRESS

Hon. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Attorney General, State of California
Department of Justice, Public Integrity Unit
P O Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

 

PIU #255137  Urgent Request for Reconsideration

Dear Attorney General Brown,

 

We are in receipt of an obvious form letter from the California Department of Justice , Public Inquiry Unit (PIU #255137) in response to our request for your office to pursue Injunctive Relief on behalf of the millions of Time Warner Cable subscribers residing in the City of Los Angeles.  When Time Warner closed fourteen public access cable channels and studios in the City of Los Angeles on December 31, 2008 they were fully aware that their actions would deny their subscribers services that had been provided to the public for over 25 years and were considered, “public assets”.

 

The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, City Council members and the City Attorney have refused to respond to our letters requesting Injunctive Relief, under the California Business & Professions Code 17200 Section 3, (Unfair Business Practices).  And, they have made no effort to replace the public access facilities with the moneys provided by Time Warner Cable Franchise Fees, for that purpose.

 

The DOJ Public Inquiry Unit response to our request for Injunctive Relief, is unacceptable and dismissive of the serious allegations made in our complaint.  The PIU response suggests that we seek our own resolution with Time Warner Cable and is a preposterous suggestion considering the harmful actions of Time Warner Cable. The millions of cable subscribers residing in the City of Los Angeles are unable to seek alternative public channels and studios. 

 

We take exception to the Public Inquiry Unit suggestion that it is our responsibility to resolve this matter without the assistance of the Department of Justice.  

 

Please see government Code Section 12511 and 12550 

       “The Attorney general shall take charge  of any investigation or prosecution of violation of law of which the Superior Court has jurisdiction”

 

Furthermore, according to the Office of Attorney General website, “about us” page reads: 
   “Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. was elected statewide to serve as the chief law officer of
California. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.) The Attorney General carries out responsibilities of the office through the California Department of Justice.
     “The Attorney General represents the people of
California in civil and criminal matters before trial, appellate and the supreme courts of California and the United States. The Attorney General also serves as legal counsel to state officers and, with few exceptions, to state agencies, boards and commissions. Exceptions to the centralized legal work done on behalf of the state are listed in Section 11041 of the Government Code.”
    “In addition, the Attorney General establishes and operates projects and programs to protect Californians from fraudulent, unfair, and illegal activities that victimize consumers or threaten public safety, and enforces laws that safeguard the environment and natural resources.”

It is our opinion the Attorney General has direct supervision over the District Attorneys of the several counties of the State and may require of them, written reports as to the condition of public business entrusted to their charge.  When he deems it advisable or necessary, in the public interest, or when directed to do so by the Governor, he shall assist any District Attorney in the discharge of his duties, and take full charge of any investigation or prosecution of violations of law of which the Superior Court has jurisdiction.  In this respect he has all the powers of a District Attorney, including the power to issue or cause to be issued subpoenas or other process.

 Therefore we are renewing our urgent request for you to take the following action on behalf of the independent public access producers and the millions of cable subscribers in the City of Los Angeles We are seeking a review of the Public Inquiry Unit’s response and request your immediate attention to our request as follows:

FILE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF under California Business & Professions Code 17200 section 3. The basis for this action is as follows:

California’s unfair competition statute, Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208, like  its federal counterpart, section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act(15U.S.C  Section 45 et seq), serves as a general prohibition on unfair and deceptive business practices and also as an antitrust law.

Section 17200 defines “unfair competition” to include any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” as well as “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading “.There are five potentially distinct theories of liability under section 17200.

1.      Unlawful business acts or practice;

2.      Unfair business acts or practice;

3.      Fraudulent business acts or practice;

4.      Unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; and

5.      False advertising and related practices covered by B&P 17500-17577

 

The broad purpose of Business and Professions Code section 17200 is “to permit tribunals to enjoin on-going wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur.”(People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626 In particular the purpose of the “unlawful” practice provision it “to extend the meaning of unfair competition to anything that can properly be called a business practice .

The U.S. Supreme Court in FTC v Sperry & Hutchinson, 405 U.S. 233, 244(1972), in which the Court held that FTC Act Section 5 could reach beyond “the letter and spirit” of existing trade regulation laws to other wrongful business practices. The Sperry & Hutchinson noted the relevant factors for determining unfairness to be: “(1) whether the practice offends public policy, (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers. In brief, the court must weigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.

Here, the action of closing fourteen public access studios and channels offends public policy , is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and causes substantial injury to consumers who will be prevented from viewing independent programs on the City public access channel. The gravity of the harm to consumers outweighs any benefit to Time-Warner.

We are hereby requesting that you file for a Temporary Restraining Order against Time Warner to continue the service until such time as the City has provided alternative and equal facilities.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

David R. Hernandez

cc:

Stanley K. Sheinbaum

Ed Asner

The Caucus

Center for Creative Voices in Media

Full Disclosure Network, Leslie Dutton

ABC Nightline, Bonnie McLean Western Bureau

L. A. Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald

Los Angeles Times. Reed Johnson

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Attorney General 2nd request!”

  1. ron cooper Says:

    The Los Angels City Council’s actions violate their citizen’s right to speak in following extraordinary ways.

    Duplicity — The LA City Council blames the State Legislature for DIVCA. Fabian Nunez and Lloyd Levine are both Los Angeles political leaders, well known to all of Southern CA. As leaders of the 2006 State Assembly, Nunez and Levine took the AT&T language, millions of dollars in campaign money, and co-authored DIVCA insisting DIVCA would not be discriminatory to LA/CA. people of color and lower income households. In fact, DIVCA has eliminated Spanish as a second language (SAP), hundreds of hours of other-than-English programming, permitted AT&T and others to “cherry-pick” lucrative neighborhoods for cable service, and closed down production studios and channels serving the many Angelenos without local access to electronic media, facilities and training. Cable rates have not decreased and infrastructure promised by AT&T is yet to be constructed.

    Deceit — The LA City Council made no serious attempt to (1) inform LA residents of the impending Time Warner shutdown and made no attempt to publicly investigate alternative scenarios, (2) The Council continues to use the financial crunch as the rationale for closure even though the City continues to collect $25 million per year in cable television franchise fees and millions more in Utility taxes exclusively from cable ser vices, (3) The City will soon collect another $5 million (an additional 1% permitted under DIVCA) exclusively for PEG related expenses. (4) With Public Access eliminated (the four channels are designated “Educational and Government Access only”), these funds will go exclusively to Government Access programming providing additional and well funded face time for local elected officials and complete editorial control, effectively silencing their local rivals, critics and pundits.

    Anti-democratic — The U.S. Constitution protects the public’s right to speak from the chilling effect and outright censorship of government officials. The orchestrated way in which DIVCA was rushed through the CA legislature by Nunez and Levine in return for millions in campaign donations from AT&T, the negative impact on the voices of LA residents, the loss of public resources without serious efforts by local government to “serve and protect” its citizens, the financial gain to be achieved for LA government, the direction of public funds to serve at the exclusive pleasure of elected officials, and the cynical manipulation and deceit of the public by local leadership stands out as a striking example of censorship by government and violation of Los Angeles citizen’s Constitutional rights.

    This is abuse of power on a massive scale — the Big Lie, Los Angeles Water and Power revisited, and an insult to all who believe in democratic ideals, due process, transparency of government, and free speech.

    Ron Cooper, Executive Director
    Access Sacramento
    4623 T Street
    Sacramento, CA. 95819
    (916) 456-8600 #112
    http://www.AccessSacramento.org

  2. Roger Martin Says:

    Our sources (ITA) say the LA36 will now include
    Public Access…. go to the ITA website for verification.

    Our newsletter is at:

    htt;://www.publicaccess.org/news.html

    Roger Martin
    Public Access Awareness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: