I've read the 11/6 position paper by Deputy District Attorney Randall B.
Christison, and the opposing paper by William Phillips, an excellent lawyer
and CDFA board member as published on the CDFA website.
 
There's no clear winner; Mr. Phillip's paper was of course not officially
recognised but even if it were, Randy's no slouch either.
 
Randall's paper makes several excellent points based on exactly the same
material Bill covers.  First off, all of us Califerters know almost by heart
the whole bit in the F&G Code about "no members of order carnivoria except
domestic cats and domestic dogs are legal" etcetera.  He consistently claims
that all of that was written by the *Legislature*; he points to nearby areas
in the Code where mustelids seem rationed out for extra-tough language, and
he points out that "the Legislature" specifically named lots of domestic
critters but not *our* domestic critter.
 
So my first obvious question to real lawyers is, "Who wrote all them bits of
code?" If the legislature, then he raises some disturbing points; if however
*COMMISSIONERS* wrote most or all of those bits, his arguments fall apart
badly.  Part of the F&G code is commissioner-written, part is
legislator-written - did our buddy Randy bother to confirm which was which?
Per his arguments, it *matters*.
 
My second point is more complicated.  The last time we went before the
legislature, a specific Senate committee declined to go forward with a true
legalization bill because "it was F&G's turf/job/etc".  My question is, did
DFG or F&G Commission lobbyists *encourage* that position in any way, by
public or private lobbying, etc?  Because if they did, they blundered back
then - and rendered Randy's recent brief and the decision it led to
"immoral", in that we are fundamentally entitled to a hearing where
legalization is at least *possible* by our arguments as citizens of a free
democracy.  Can a judge suspend enforcement of the current ban until such a
true, fair hearing is finally conducted?  Isn't the F&G side morally
obligated to do so, if indeed they've blundered in such a way as to deprive
*ALL* of us of due process of law?
 
Can we sue them on such a basis, never mind any other possible facts?
 
I'd particuarly like to hear from Mr. Bill Phillips, since he's not only an
excellent lawyer, he was present for the major battles in the legislature
and should know first-hand how much pressure DFG was putting on the
legislature, pressure that according to the esteemed Randy Christison is now
understood to be WRONG, ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL?
[Posted in FML issue 1752]