On Jan. 24, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris asked the California Supreme Court to conduct an expedited appeals process that considered the state’s newly filed challenges to a tentative ruling in August and a finalized opinion in November from Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny.

The respected veteran judge concluded that the state High-Speed Rail Authority did not have a legal business plan because it had not identified reliable funding for the 300-mile “initial operating segment,” a cost the authority earlier pegged as $31 billion. Kenny also said the state had not completed adequate environmental reviews for the initial segment.

In a strategy that on its surface seems beyond peculiar, the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris did not challenge the core premise of Kenny’s tentative ruling — that the project didn’t have a legal business plan. Instead, the AG merely said the project could continue for now with the state using federal grants that were already in hand.

But after Kenny reacted by putting out a final judgment that found, yunno, the project still didn’t have a legal business plan, the sniping started from the governor’s office and state Democrats. After a month, it led Harris and Brown to seek an expedited review. In February, the state Supreme Court agreed to review their request — but assigned the chore to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. On Feb. 15, the appellate court said sufficient issues had been raised about Kenny’s ruling and the importance of timeliness to the project and that it would conduct an expedited review.

I thought and still think the most likely explanation for this shoddy legal work is that the governor — playing 3-D chess to the rest of the world’s checkers — wanted the dubious, controversial project killed off ASAP. Lawyers I talked to with no stake in the case expressed disbelief that Kenny would hold what’s known as a “remedies” hearing only to have the state provide no remedies to the legal deficiencies he cited in his tentative ruling.

An unexpectedly slow ‘expedited review’

Remember, in its first appeal — when it was supposed to make its full case — the state didn’t dispute that it was breaking the law. This alone prompted some observers to predict the appellate court would rule within weeks in favor of bullet-train opponents.

Nine weeks later, however, the appellate court still is taking testimony and reviewing evidence. A quick decision affirming Kenny didn’t happen. It sounds to me like this case will drag along — with nothing “expedited” about it.

In the big picture, nothing has changed. The bullet train has no funding options after it blows through its initial $13 billion or so in secured state and federal funding. No investors will come forward without the possibility of taxpayer subsidies to protect them if the project goes south, and such subsidies are against state law. In the sequester era of sharp limits of domestic discretionary spending, Congress certainly isn’t going to fund a hugely costly public works project just for one state.

But in the medium picture, if the appeals judges overturn Kenny or in other ways muck with his opinion, we could soon see the state spends billions of dollars on an initial segment of track for a project that will never be completed.

Stranger things have happened. Every day the “expedited review” drags on makes me worry more that the hoped-for summer 2014 denouement to the bullet-train insanity might not happen. Instead, we’ll have it to kick around for at least another year.

On the bright side, if the Brown administration really does start the initial segment in the middle of nowhere without future funding anywhere in sight, maybe then we’ll finally see the establishment ninnies stop proclaiming Jerry to be a good governor just because budgets pass on time.

A $13 billion abject debacle is pretty tough to ignore.

1. Legal obstacles created by Prop. 1A’s ban on subsidies and requirement that the initial segment have all funding and enviro reviews completed before construction begins.

2. The extreme unlikelihood of further federal funding. It’s not just because of House Republicans. It’s because discretionary domestic spending is going to be squeezed in perpetuity because of rising entitlement costs. It’s because of the silliness of the idea that the other 49 states would fund high-speed rail for one state and one state only.

3. The growing likelihood that the bullet train is going to be left far, far behind by other technologies that cost less but help the environment much more. The mass advent of driverless cars is now seen as inevitable by 2035 or 2040. What is the average Californian going to want to use: His cheap personal hybrid mini limo? Or a train, no matter how fancy or fast?

The high-speed rail end game: Clever? Try farcical.

So how do Jerry and Kamala wind this down?

First the AG produces an astounding response to Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny’s initial Aug. 16 ruling that the California High-Speed Rail Authority didn’t have a legal business plan that identified funding sources for the first 300-mile segment or sufficient environmental reviews for that segment.

The response, filed in October, didn’t disagree. The AG’s office by this omission CONCEDED the state had an illegal business plan. It said, however, that the rail authority could continue for now, using federal funds only.

Then, last week, Harris completely reversed field with an appeal that claims that not only was Kenny completely wrong but that the whole idea that a court could get in the way of California’s executive branch is offensive. Here’s how AP reported this:

“A petition filed late Friday seeks an expedited review and asks the court to overturn two decisions that prevented the state from selling $8.6 billion in voter-approved bonds. The lower-court rulings also require the high-speed rail authority to write a new financing plan.

“The governor, the rail authority and the state treasurer argue that the rulings prevent California from quickly starting construction on the $68 billion project. They also say it could hurt California’s ability to finance other voter-approved projects.”

This is from the Sacramento Bee:

“The administration said in a request for expedited review that ‘the trial court’s approach to these issues cripples government’s ability to function’ and could have implications for other infrastructure projects.

“The state argues the normal appeals process could take years to resolve and is ‘not a real choice.’”

AG asks justices to accept diminished role for judiciary

This is a massive “bleep you” to the judicial branch of the California government. It argues that if courts can impede government projects or initiatives, whatever the circumstances, that is a bad thing. It argues that courts playing their standard watchdog role “cripples government’s ability to function.”

And it makes this argument to the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT!

This is an appeal that’s designed to fail. Yeah, surrrrrrre, the justices will endorse this putdown and repudiate judicial authority by siding with Harris’ appeal.

I’m really enjoying this farce. And it’s only going to get better.

Hey, Sacramento beat reporters: When will any of y’all get around to asking Kamala Harris about the shocking change in her POV from October to last week?

Probably never.

If they can ignore the original lie of the bullet train — the evidence from 2008 that the rail authority never for a minute believed it could craft a legal business plan under Prop 1A — they can ignore anything.

An order issued by a Sacramento Superior Court judge on Nov. 27 ruled Gerawan Framing did not have to enter into collective bargaining while preparing an appeal. The UFW didn’t even mention this setback on its website.

UFW jumps the gun

While Gerawan Farming was awaiting the results of the Nov. 5 Gerawan employee election to decertify the UFW, the UFW requested a temporary restraining order Nov. 22 to force Gerawan into collective bargaining anyway. This attempt to force unionization on the Gerawan employees was helped along by the  California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which ordered the collective bargaining, while the Board simultaneously has been sitting on the employee election results.

Gerawan Farming refused to enter into the collective bargaining process pending the allotted 30-days to prepare an appeal. The company has since filed a complaint with the with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District in Fresno, against the ALRB’s invocation of the California’s Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Statute.

The UFW tried to get the state court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Gerawan Farming from refusing to abide by the ALRB’s collective bargaining order. The UFW argued, “Otherwise the UFW and the workers will suffer irreparable harm from precisely the automatic stay that the Legislature declined to enact.”

(All of the documents in this case, including the UFW complaint and judge’s order, can be found here. Case number 2013-00153803)

Judge Brown’s explanation

Superior Court Judge David Brown explained in his Nov. 27 decision:

“The review by the court shall not extend further than to determine, on the basis of the entire record, whether any of the following occurred:

“(1) The board acted without, or in excess of, its powers or jurisdiction.

“(2) The board has not proceeded in the manner required by law.

“(3) The order or decision of the board was procured by fraud or was an abuse of discretion.

“(4) The order or decision of the board violates any right of the petitioner under the Constitution of the United States or the California Constitution.”

Legal cherry-picking

The UFW argued that the language within the state law compels the result they were seeking. “They assert the Legislature’s deliberate creation a narrow framework for review of a Mediator’s report by the Board (ALRB), demonstrates a desire to provide farm workers with the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement,” the judge wrote.

The UFW argued that the language of the statute provided that no final order of the Board should be stayed on appeal unless the appellant shows irreparable harm, and a likelihood of success on appeal shows an explicit intent to provide a collective bargaining agreement to agricultural workers without delay.

But the judge didn’t buy the UFW’s legal argument.

“Unfortunately, there are no provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act governing the Mandatory Mediation Process that permit the Agriculture Labor Relations Board to seek temporary relief during the pendency of the 30-day period for seeking appellate review,” the judge said, quoting from a similar 2012 case, Ace Tomato Company Inc., v. United Farm Workers.

Judge Brown explained:

“In Ace, following a Board Decision affirming the mediator’s report, the UFW filed a request for agency action to enforce the anti-stay provision in the Mandatory Mediation Law, alleging that Ace had failed to implement the CBA as ordered, and requesting that the Board go to court to enforce its decision (under Lab. Code § 1164.3(f), either party or the Board may file an action to enforce the Order of the Board),” the Judge wrote. “Immediately thereafter, the Board issued an Administrative Order requesting that Ace provide a response to the UFW’s request for enforcement. Ace provided a response indicating that it intended to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeal of the Board’s decision affirming the mediator, but did not indicate whether it had implemented the agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Board issued another Administrative Order, ordering Ace to state whether it had in fact implemented the CBA.”

“As in unfair labor practice proceedings, the Board’s decisions are not self-enforcing,” the judge said. “Rather, in order to enforce its decisions, the Board must first obtain a judgement.” And judgments are obtained through the Superior Court.

Legislative intent

The judge explained legislative intent should be gathered from the whole legislative act, rather than cherry-picking a few words or isolated parts. He wrote, “Courts should thus construe all provisions of a statute together,… significance being given when possible to each word, phrase, sentence, and part of the act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.”

In other words, the judge told the UFW that words matter, especially in context. “The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence. Its words must be construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they so as to make sense of the entire statutory scheme,” the judge said.

The judge added there was “no legal mechanism by which the UFW could seek to enforce the collective bargaining agreement” at that time.

Judge Brown ruled: “The application is DENIED.”