“Lawfare” is a term we've added to our vocabulary

Although the use is the same, the goals and targets can be big or small

"Lawfare" is a term often used to describe the strategic use or misuse of legal systems and principles as a means to achieve political, military, or ideological objectives. It typically implies that legal mechanisms are weaponized to suppress, delegitimize, or neutralize opponents, rather than to seek justice or uphold the rule of law.

Key characteristics of lawfare include:

1. Weaponization of the Legal System: Employing lawsuits, investigations, or judicial processes as tools to undermine or intimidate adversaries.

2. Manipulation of Laws: Exploiting ambiguities, procedural loopholes, or overreach within the legal framework to achieve outcomes that align with a particular agenda.

3. Chilling Effect: Creating fear of legal retaliation to discourage actions, speech, or opposition, even if they are lawful.

4. Undermining Democratic Norms: Using legal processes to achieve outcomes that bypass democratic or constitutional safeguards, such as targeting political opponents or limiting civil liberties.

5. Public Perception: Often framed as a battle of narratives, where one side portrays the actions as legitimate legal recourse, and the other as abuse or persecution.

The most famous contemporary example of lawfare is the recent avalanche of legal cases brought against Donald Trump, most of which have now been or seem to be about to be dismissed. The frivolity and malevolent motives For every example where justice against the tactic of lawfare was defeated, there are many more where it was wildly successful.

It is not a recent phenomenon; it has a long history. Perhaps one of the most widely understood uses of lawfare was in the Soviet Union, especially during Stalin's reign of terror.

The quote “Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime” is commonly attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the Soviet secret police (NKVD) under Joseph Stalin. The phrase reflects the reality of Soviet lawfare, where accusations and charges were often fabricated to target political opponents or perceived enemies of the state. Beria was infamous for his role in orchestrating Stalin’s purges and using the legal system as a tool for political repression.

Perhaps, just maybe, we are witnessing a change of trajectory, where the power of lawfare is being challenged successfully, perhaps as one part of a larger and more comprehensive renaissance of moral principles. I am going to give you a local example of just that.

As many of you know, I believe that our local experience is the key to understanding events, conditions, and situations reported on the larger social levels of state, national, and global events. Suppose we come to understand a political dynamic played out by our local cast of players. In that case, we become better equipped to apply that knowledge as a metaphor for understanding events at the larger social scales. Humans are human, after all.

Likewise, when we see something playing out in some remote location, like the Trump lawfare, or some national scandal of moral turpitude, if we pay attention we can find analogous examples in our local gossip. The local scale is a smaller sample, so examples are less common. But when something comes up locally that relates to the bigger picture, it is not hard to make those connections.

I am going to tell you such a story. Enter one of our more notorious local figures, Karl Ory.

As a refresher, Karl got his political start by teaming up with the efforts of fellow socialists, most notably Tom Hayden. Tom had a famous wife, Jane Fonda, and Tom was an early member of the California socialist/communist elites operating in California politics.

Part of his strategy for his hopes that the Democratic Party could eventually dominate the state was his focus on California towns with colleges. In the 1960s-70s, anti-Vietnam War activism was a strong mobilizing factor for youth in the development of the emerging Progressive Political movements. At that time (hard to believe) California was a Republican stronghold. I guess we must admit that Hayden’s ambitions have led to nothing less than wild success.

Among the more notable college towns, Berkeley, and Santa Barbara, whereas the smaller, less written-about towns of Santa Cruz, and our own little Chico were also in his sights.

Karl Ory was a young, Chico activist stud in those days. I suppose like all of us, Karl still thinks of himself as a dashing young man, shocked to discover the old guy in the mirror. Time goes fast, faster with fun. At the very least he has the “anti-nuclear weapons ordinance” to leave as his legacy.

Ory “coordinated” with local Democratic campaign wizard, Bob Mulholland, and Bob’s wife and elected-Supervisor Jane Dolan. Jane served on the county board us supes, and Ory was on the Chico City council. Let’s just say that these three and Tom Hayden were connected.

Well, times pass, and time changes us all. Karl and Mulholland operated in Chico for decades. Both are local icons, at least in their own minds. I think of them as a living monument to the shitty times the state has endured over their tenure. They say a lady always knows when to leave. This crowd is no lady.

Don’t misunderstand me, none of these people had a big personal impact on California turning commie over the decades. I’m saying they were part of that thing, that “progressive movement” that some see as just a nicer way of saying “socialist.”

The dominance of one-party California politics is a condition originating decades ago. That original minority effort was somehow leveraged into a monopoly political machine. Sadly, that monopoly on policy set in motion a vast series of disasters, some only becoming obvious years later. Great disasters like devastating wildfires are merely symptoms of some earlier stupid policy. Pick a topic. Yea, that policy. That’s where the madness started, leading to madness piled upon madness.

Before policies, there are the people needed to think them up. They mostly talk to each other and donors with “special” interests. In a sea of “yes men,” nobody practices saying “no.” Some really bat-shit ideas became laws that way.

Laws in the wrong hands can become tools of power aimed at changing society through forced compliance. Ideally, laws should reflect society’s values, not weapons employed to change society.

For this California one-party transformation to happen, brilliant minds realized they needed the power of government to implement their policies. People like Tom, Bob, and Karl became players in securing the institutions of Government power for themselves, and they got it. 75 years later, the chickens have finally come home to roost, and they aren’t laying the eggs you want to eat.

In very recent memory, it seemed like they had near control of everything. In California, the only impediment to turning the next great idea from the genius class into law, (winning an election boosts your IQ by 100 points) is time. Given enough time, this Oboro system can put some whacky tobacky ideas in place, and once there, they are enforceable against everyone. For things like murder, that’s a good thing. For plandemics, maybe not so good.

The preceding was a very high-level version of lawfare, practiced by the ruling class in California. They work with players in Washington DC, who work with (on?) other countries. In general, this is the power of state politics directed at making you do or stop doing this or that. If what you are doing is encompassed by the notion of liberty, well, that can lead to dark places.

For a local low-level example of this kind of attitude and conduct, we return to Karl Ory. Karl is no stranger to lawfare.

His first great act was political: Passing the local ordinance, making detonating a nuclear weapon in Chico a misdemeanor. But soon he turned to lawfare.

Most who live here know there is a Farmer Market in a city parking lot next to City Hall. It’s been around for quite a while. At some point, the city decided they could use a parking structure on that site. They offered to make a spot for the market to operate under the shelter of the structure. The board of the Farmer Market was thrilled. This was an opportunity to make things better for everyone. It was the making of a mutually beneficial partnership.

Enter Karl Ory. As part of the local political genius class, constantly thinking of the next election, he immediately recognized a political opportunity. He started the “Save Farmer Market” campaign and a referendum to overturn the Market deal. Needless to say, the Market was never in any danger of being eliminated.

Long story short, nobody got what they wanted except Karl. The city lost parking and the Market vendors still endure the rain. But Karl got a wedge issue, and for that benefit, no need to be overly concerned with facts or innocent third parties. Karl wins one for his team. Was he running for office at this time, I wonder?

You may remember the “Move the Junkyard” issue. Chico Scrap Metal (CSM) had been set up along little Chico Creek and the city asked them to move to 20^th Street. They did, and many years later, the property was re-zoned. The City Council and CSM had worked out a deal. Everyone was happy except Karl.

Karl made a stink from the Dias (he won again somewhere in there). He mounted another “Save the Market” type campaign. When the City council outvoted him and approved the negotiated deal, he mounted a referendum to veto his own council. (Democratic and democracy don’t mean the same thing.)

The city sued to stop him, Karl countersued for something or other, and now all three parties, the City, CSM, and Karl Ory, were all tied up in court for years. It is an instructive and interesting legal saga for another time. Karl retired before it was ever settled, and years later, not much has changed. In reality, instead of forcing CSM to leave, we got a decade of limbo with everything frozen in place. CSM’s stuff is still there, right across from Sierra Nevada.

This brings me to today. A while back, the city proposed a sales tax be put on the ballot. Karl could still recognize a wedge issue when he saw one. Since he was voted out in the last election, acting as a private citizen in a group, he sought to criticize the current council over the proposed tax issue. He submitted a statement he wanted published on the ballot as the “Against” argument. He claimed he was submitting it as an organization, but failed to perform the legal requirements. Our City Clerk approved a different statement, and Karl sued.

He wanted to force the Clerk to take his statement instead, and because of deadlines to print the ballots, he asked the Court to hurry up their ruling. It obliged. Long story short, the court found in the city’s favor, big time.

Karl was working with an attorney, a guy by the name of James Michael Anthony. Now, I think I might know this guy. I came across him via a homeless lawsuit in Santa Cruz.

He was like the LSNC of Santa Cruz, but he had an interesting twist. He organized the homeless population into a union and then sued the city on their behalf. How he herded the cats to pull that off is a whole other story. I spoke to him on the phone once, because he wanted to do the same here in Chico. Believe it or not, our homeless population threw him out. Ironic. Thus, the field was cleared for Corey Turner of LSNC.

Through Karl’s attorney, he filed suit claiming the City Clerk blew it. Our not-really-city-attorney attorney, Eric Salberg, told Anthony he should read the law because the case had no merit or legal basis. Long story a little longer, Anthony pressed on, and then Karl was quoted as saying “I think regardless of whether we’ll not [sic] get our message on the sample ballot we have had an opportunity to talk about financial mismanagement at city hall and we’ll continue getting that message out during the upcoming election.” Sometimes people just say what they’re thinking out loud.

Well, they lost, so our City Clerk was right, again. But even better, the judge found that Ory, Anthony, and the Chicoans acted in bad faith. Now that is a very bad thing because that means the other party can recover their attorney’s fees paid to win. When there is a finding of bad faith, the baddies have to pay.

As the judge pointed out, Anthony is a lawyer and he can read. Despite Salbert making it clear that the statute language was obvious, Anthony pushed on anyway. That and the circumstantial evidence of bad faith, Karl admitting in writing that he had ulterior motives, (he wanted a wedge issue) was enough for the judge.

Courts don’t take kindly to lawyers wasting their time, especially when they know better. The Court not only found for the city, but imposed financial sanctions “jointly and severally,” which means Karl, Anthony, and Chicoans Against Financial Mismanagement – NO on Measure H., are equally liable (though contributions might not be equal) for $36,672.63 payable to the City of Chico.

Well!! Justice at last? Not quite. Karl had not yet accepted defeat. Through Anthony, he appealed to a three-judge panel. To say that was a disaster hardly says it. Not only did the court uphold the lower court and the sanctions, but they awarded the City costs for the appeal, which will be added on top of the $36k.

I’m not one to wish financial hardship on anyone, even Karl. But I do hope this is the last we hear from him. Karl, it’s time to accept that the 20-year-old Socialists in town have changed the guard, and you’re not part of it.

I do enjoy the comeuppance, however. For once, Karl was scolded for the wedgies he’s inflicted on Chico over the years. I have no inside scoop, but I am guessing Anthony’s malpractice insurance, assuming he has any, will pay the toll.

Meanwhile, Measure H passed with some 60% majority, and the roads are getting better, and Karl is, hopefully riding off into the sunset with, perhaps, just a little less confidence.