AB1810 A defendant charged with a felony may have it dismissed if a
mental health expert persuades a judge the offense resulted from a
treatable mental disorder. “the most irresponsible legislation our
state has ever seen” DA Summer Stephen. A criminal convicted
of a Felony could avoid any prison time and be released into the
public under a mental health professional's supervision. Felonies
are the most serious of crimes and include murder, rape, robbery, assault etc...
Shirley Weber voted for this law, takes effect Jan. 2019
JOHN MOORE FOR ASSEMBLY 2020
79th California Assembly District
More Water Reservoirs Not Tunnels · More Job Opportunities For Millennials
Affordable, Low Tax, Energy · End Sanctuary Cities · Stop Election Fraud
Retain the old Prop 13 · Protect 2nd Amendment · Parental Control over Vaccinations & Sex Ed
More Funding to Expand Home Schooling & Charter Schools
END THE LOCKDOWN NOW Quarantine the ill not the Healthy See Law Suit Endorsement Below
Ban Drag Queens From Having Access To Children On All Public Premises
Shirley Weber voted ‘Yes’ on every one of the following Senate and Assembly Bills. I am against all of them.
AB186 Provided for illegal drug consumption (heroin) safe places without fear of prosecution or lost welfare benefits
AB1810 A defendant charged with a felony may have it dismissed if a mental health condition existed at the time of the crime
SB239 Reduces criminal penalties for unprotected sex by those (includes prostitutes) infected with HIV-AIDS
Weber’s signature bill, the Healthy Youth Act 2015, has been used to introduce sex toys and pornographic comic books
to 11 year-olds in SDUSD Sex Ed. Do you want this for your kids? Control must be given back to the parents.
SB1 Raised the California gasoline tax 12cents/gallon ($600 to $700 per family/yr) and Car Registration fee $25
to $175 depending on vehicle. WAKE UP - Gas Taxes have been diverted from roads to other uses for decades!!
SB1 Tax Do you know it AUTOMATICALLY INCREASES EVERY year!
AB1668 established a 55 gallons/resident/day as the standard for indoor residential water use.
Average use today is over 100 gallons/resident/day!! How would you reduce INDOOR USE over 45%???
AB1668 SEC.3. Section 1846.5 is added to the Water Code:
1846.5. (a) An urban retail water supplier based on drought conditions, can be fined ten thousand dollars
($10,000) each day the violation occurs. Other California Water Law permits the Supplier to pass fines
to residential customers.
My numeric proof, here on this Website, showed California has water over 400% above consumption, no restrictions
or $24 Billion Tunnels needed.
SB285 Prohibits public employers to discourage employees from joining a union.
Public Employees should have the freedom to choose too!
SB54 Sanctuary Cities Act, reduces cooperation between local police and Federal immigration authorities,
interferes with the apprehension of criminal illegal aliens.
AB1008 Prohibits employers from asking job applicants about a criminal history
Shouldn't your bank manager know if a new teller has a criminal history?
Law Suit Endorsement
Recently JD Bols filed suit in Federal Court San Diego against Governor Newsom to obtain
Constitutional (California and Federal),Legislative and case law required recompense, for
for the taking of his personal property by the State of California under Governor Newsom's
Covid-19 "Lockdown" Executive Order.
The manner of the "taking" is novel. The Governor's "Lockdown" Executive Order unilaterally
forced Bols' business renters to stop working and closed Bols's property from further use until
an undetermined time in the future when the Executive Order is rescinded. For approximately
2 months Bols real property has been illegally taken from his hands, by infringing on his rights
of real property ownership, by the Governor, and with it the necessary personal property rents
that would have flowed to Bols as the registered owner of the real properties.
Bols requests justifiable recompense, as required by law, in the amount of all rents unpaid during
the time control of his real property has been and will continue to be illegitimately taken from
his hands. Bols also requests the return of his real property rights to use his property for any
legitimate purpose. Bols demands the Governor and State follow the laws of the Federal and State
Constitutions, California Legislation and California case law (all referenced below) to correct
the current illegitimate taking of his property.
This law suit is a specific microcosm of the larger problem created by the fast and loose
illegitimate procedures forcibly enacted on every business and citizen of the State of Cali-
fornia by careless and likely ignorant elected and appointed officials at the highest offices
of our State.
This law suit is a warning to all Californians, that the current highest elected officer of
California is uneducated on the limitations of his power and by instinct follows the lead of the
Chinese Communist Party procedures, without reflection on American laws to the contrary, as
described immediately below. Our Governor is not alone, several other state governors are equally
uneducated on the American laws which place limitations on their power. It has taken a law
suit by a single citizen to expose that very disturbing point.
Our California Governor’s use of a widespread shutdown of businesses and extreme restrictions on the
movement of citizens was clearly modeled after the Chinese example used in Wuhan city, Hubei Province
during their Covid-19 outbreak in late 2019 – early 2020. We must recall that China is a Communist
country, run by the Chinese Communist Party, CCP, and such extreme measures are the product of a
The United States, we are compelled to remember, falls under the American Constitution which prohibits
the unilateral taking of private property by Government without two things: 1) Due Process of Law
2) Just Compensation to the harmed party. American courts have consistently supported the notion that
a taking of property from a private citizen, business or corporation for the benefit of the general
public must be borne by that same public (since the public is the beneficiary), through the same agency
of government that took the property. Therefore compensation is due to the private former owner of the property.
Property includes Personal Property (Income, Salary, Cash, Rents, Collectibles, Vehicles, Tools, Equipment,
Heirlooms, Harvested Crops, Livestock …) and Real Property (Real Estate).
In a Communist country items 1 and 2 above are not established or required.
In the United States, under the Constitution, a declaration of a State of Emergency does not remove the
obligation of 1 and 2 above. Indeed even a State of War does not relieve the US Government of that obligation.
During the Civil War Union officers would write a receipt to an individual farmer whose horses, food or other
valuables were taken for use in the War effort (this does not include damage done to the enemy’s property
by combat). The receipt would be taken by the farmer to a military post for cash compensation in the amount
deduced by the farmer and issuing Army officer.
The type of recompense given a former property owner in the Covid-19 outbreak could take many forms. The
Governor could have allowed forgiveness of State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, State Sales Taxes and/or cash.
Likewise the lower officials compelled to follow the Governor’s Executive Order could have made tax concessions
and/or cash compensation. These options would have lessened or even eliminated the necessity of the Governor
going to the Legislature to establish a Compensation Fund, though that could have been done in conjunction
with the other options.
The most disturbing revelation is not the choice of recompense the California State Governments could have
offered but the sad conclusion that the 5th Amendment’s constitutionally required recompense was never even
considered by the State, County or City Governments.
The California Government Code Title 2, Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 8572 underwrites the Federal 5th Amendment
by requiring the Governor to pay the reasonable value of any property commandeered during a state of Emergency.
The Governor is in violation of the US Constitution and State Law too.
The Governor is also in violation of the California Constitution Article1, Section19 which demands that: Private
property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury
unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.
In this specific case Plaintiff JD Bols lost tens of thousands in rental income from the Governor’s Covid-19
Executive Order that forcefully closed his business renters while he continued to incur expenses for
mortgage interest, maintenance, taxes and insurance on his property.
The Chinese officials of Wuhan strictly prohibited demonstrations against their Covid-19 lockdown. Similarly,
during the first few days of the Governor Newsom’s shutdown Executive Order, California citizens were
prohibited from demonstrating against our Lockdown. The right of the people to a public redress of grievances
against a government action is part of the 1790 Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, in our Federal Constitution.
Luckily that was revised after a few days, but the alarming fact remains that the Chinese Communist protocol
was the first option chosen by our constitutionally elected Governor Newsom.
In Wuhan the Chinese officials quarantined everyone without inspection. That is the power of the Communist State.
In America things are different. California Courts have limited the authority of Public Health Officials
over personal liberty. The power to quarantine an individual must be based in reasonable grounds that the
person to be held is indeed infected and the disease is infectious. Ex parte Martin, 83 Cal. App. 2d 164 (1948).
Public Health Officials must be able to show “probable cause to believe the person so held has an infectious disease…”.
Under Governor Newsom’s Executive Order of a State of Emergency, the Covid-19 disease presents California with the first
instance where the healthy, uninfected individuals were also quarantined! This is in direct contradiction to
California Court precedence and the Martin case cited above. Again we are dismayed by the Governor’s actions
which mimic the Communist Chinese model while trampling California court decisions.
Nothing has been as irritating as the arbitrary designation of “essential businesses”. The term “essential” was taken
from a Federal Gov. list of essential Federal operations. I don’t believe that gave rules for selecting one retailer
over another. Wal-Mart and CostCo are retail businesses that are deemed “essential” and allowed to remain open.
Small, independent retailers are not “essential” (except to their families). Small retailers have fewer customers on premises,
many fewer than large retailers so they are less likely to spread disease. Are the large retailers safer?
They should both be open for business.
I have discussed only the 5 most egregious Causes of Action of the 11 Causes of Action in the JD Bols Federal Law Suit.
There is one stunning, depressing and unintended point that comes clear through all the formal 11 Causes of Action.
His suit has exposed an alarming trend in the Governor’s office to follow overreaching directives that mimic
the decisions and actions of the largest Communist leadership in the world, Communist China.
There appears to be little respect or awareness in the Governor’s office for the US Constitution and the
California Constitution, both of which place many more restraints on government than the Communist Chinese model.
I endorse this suit against the Governor’s office in the hope that respect and awareness for Constitutional government,
legislation and respect for California Case Law precedents in our State will be restored.
79th Assembly District Candidate 2020
May 17th 2020