Speaker 1: Gather around children, Let's hear the sordid tale of Republican incompetence.
Speaker 1: A Democrat elected to what should be a Republican state
Speaker 1: Senate seat, and a turn on a dime conversion from
Speaker 1: Democrat to Republican. This is the story of Senator Marie
Speaker 1: Alvarado Gill. Now her district is the fourth state Senate district,
Speaker 1: and this is kind of a new state Senate district.
Speaker 1: It's a monstrously large state Senate district. It covers. Basically,
Speaker 1: one of the things for us to remember as Californians
Speaker 1: is that our state senators in California represent an absurdly
Speaker 1: large number of people. We have forty million Californians and
Speaker 1: forty state senators, so each state senator represents a very
Speaker 1: large number of people. And the state Senator Alvarado Gill
Speaker 1: her district encompasses a huge portion of the California Nevada border,
Speaker 1: just this enormous mountainous area with very few residents, and
Speaker 1: then a good chunk of the North Valley, so the
Speaker 1: northeastern portion of the Central Valley, the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains,
Speaker 1: all of Death Valley, portions of Stanislaus Calveris, Amador, El Dorado,
Speaker 1: Placer Alpine to Illumini, Mariposa, Madera, Mono, and Inyo Counties
Speaker 1: a right. So it's this geographically monstrously large district, but
Speaker 1: this is a district that should be Republican. Should be Republican.
Speaker 1: This district voted for Trump fifty one to forty six
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. This district voted for John Cox for
Speaker 1: governor in twenty eighteen, fifty six to forty three. It
Speaker 1: voted for Brian Dolly for governor most recently fifty nine
Speaker 1: to forty. This is a very conservative leaning district. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, this seat was up for reelection. Now,
Speaker 1: this seat was largely created anew after the redistricting. We
Speaker 1: have redistricting that happens every ten years. Per the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty census, this new district was sort of carved up.
Speaker 1: But other Republicans had been holding a seat sort of
Speaker 1: similar to this, with a similar kind of geography and
Speaker 1: demographic So this is a Republican seat. And there aren't
Speaker 1: a lot of safe Republican seats in the state Senate. Okay,
Speaker 1: there are maybe eight or nine out of forty that
Speaker 1: could be safe Republican districts. So in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: they have a primary. Twenty twenty two, they have a
Speaker 1: primary for this state Senate seat. And as you all know,
Speaker 1: we in California have this ridiculous jungle primary system. So basically,
Speaker 1: let's do the math this way. There are about it's
Speaker 1: about a sixty forty split between Republicans and Democrats. Within
Speaker 1: this district. Four Republicans ran, two Democrats ran. The Republicans
Speaker 1: each averaged about fifteen percent of the vote, and the
Speaker 1: two Democrats averaged twenty percent of the vote. So what
Speaker 1: happens in a top two primary system. All the Republicans
Speaker 1: were shut out. None of the Republicans made it to
Speaker 1: the general election because the two Democrats each got more
Speaker 1: votes than any individual Republican. This includes, by the way,
Speaker 1: George Radanovich, who is now running for the state Assembly seat.
Speaker 1: He's running for Jim Patterson's old state Assembly seat. And
Speaker 1: this is you know, I have I don't have much
Speaker 1: bad to say about George Danovich at all, other than
Speaker 1: I guess it's disappointing how he couldn't I guess, get
Speaker 1: the momentum going enough for this state Senate race to
Speaker 1: get over that twenty percent hump. It was an enormous
Speaker 1: embarrassment that Republicans couldn't get somebody in the top two.
Speaker 1: This is a sixty to forty Republican to Democrat district.
Speaker 1: Basically four Republicans ran. Nobody had the common sense to
Speaker 1: just drop out so that somebody could kind of pull
Speaker 1: ahead and win this thing. And this led to the
Speaker 1: ridiculous situation of two Democrats being the top two vote
Speaker 1: getters in the twenty twenty two primary and Marie Alvarado
Speaker 1: Gill winning this seat. A Democrat winning this very heavily
Speaker 1: conservative seat, so state senators have four year long terms
Speaker 1: of office. She was elected in twenty twenty two. We
Speaker 1: are approaching twenty twenty four. She is probably looking ahead.
Speaker 1: She is certainly looking ahead to the twenty twenty six elections.
Speaker 1: A lot of California politicians are starting this look ahead
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty six. Right now. We're going to have
Speaker 1: another governor's race in twenty twenty six. A lot of
Speaker 1: our statewide offices will be up for reelection. Twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six will be an important year for many many Californians,
Speaker 1: including all the half of the state senators that will
Speaker 1: be up for reelection in twenty twenty six. So Marie
Speaker 1: Alvarado Gill was a Democrat. She was a member of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Caucus within the California State Legislature. She endorsed
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, She co sponsored a resolution within the California
Speaker 1: State Senate giving their appreciation to Joe Biden about what
Speaker 1: a wonderful and historic and consequential president he was. And
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, just a few days ago, she
Speaker 1: announces she's leaving the Democrat Party. She's becoming a Republican.
Speaker 1: The party has just moved too far to the left.
Speaker 1: It's abandoned her, and she needs to she needs she
Speaker 1: can't she can't tell all right this anymore. So she's
Speaker 1: going to become a Republican and run for reelection as
Speaker 1: a Republican in twenty twenty six. Now this has pleased
Speaker 1: pretty much nobody. Obviously, the Democrats are upset. You ran
Speaker 1: as a Democrat. We supported you as a Democrat. What
Speaker 1: are you doing. You just endorsed Kamala Harris last week,
Speaker 1: you just co authored this resolution talking about what a
Speaker 1: historically significant president, wonderful president Joe Biden is. Are sort
Speaker 1: of like, thanks Joe for dropping out from the California legislature.
Speaker 1: You just endorsed these things, and now you're a Republican
Speaker 1: all of a sudden. Similarly, the response from the Republican
Speaker 1: Party has been muted. I think some Republicans have sort
Speaker 1: of had to put some kind of a smiling face
Speaker 1: on it, because, well, look, we don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of state senators. She's just you know, increased the number
Speaker 1: of state senators by twelve and a half percent. We
Speaker 1: only had eight of the forty state senators before. Now
Speaker 1: we have nine of the forty. So I think to
Speaker 1: a certain extent, the Republican powers that be had to
Speaker 1: sort of say, well, okay, well we welcome you in.
Speaker 1: But other Republicans with a bit more freedom to speak
Speaker 1: their minds, and I think the leading Republican on this
Speaker 1: front has been Bill Asie, who's a state assembly member
Speaker 1: from I think like Corona, California. Bill Assie comes out
Speaker 1: and says, this is obvious, BS, this is obvious. Sheer nonsense.
Speaker 1: She's not a Republican. She just talked about how she's
Speaker 1: endorsing Kamala Harris for president. She is endorsing you know,
Speaker 1: she's giving this love note that she's helped co author
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden. This is like a week before she
Speaker 1: made her decision to switch parties. She's doing these things,
Speaker 1: so Essale is pointing out like this is obvious nonsense.
Speaker 1: She wants to get reelected in twenty twenty six. She
Speaker 1: knows that the odds of the Republicans screwing this up
Speaker 1: again in the twenty twenty sixth primary are are going
Speaker 1: to be fairly low. Republicans have hopefully learned their lesson
Speaker 1: from the disastrous debacle of again running four people who
Speaker 1: all got about fifteen percent of the vote. So why
Speaker 1: I mean, of course that's what she's doing. But again
Speaker 1: it goes back to why are we in this situation
Speaker 1: in the first place. We're in this situation in the
Speaker 1: first place because the California Republican Party is inept. The
Speaker 1: California Republican Party was so inept that they couldn't get
Speaker 1: at least one of these four people to drop out
Speaker 1: of the race. And it's this thing where Democrats fall
Speaker 1: in line. Democrats fall in line, Republicans don't, I think
Speaker 1: the California and the reason that happens in California is
Speaker 1: because the California Democratic Party actually has power. The California
Speaker 1: Democratic Party can actually threaten people credibly. They can actually
Speaker 1: say hey, if they have both carrots and sticks, they
Speaker 1: can say, hey, if you run in the recall election
Speaker 1: against Gavin Newsom, we will end your career. Or they
Speaker 1: can say listen, in this race, it makes sense for
Speaker 1: you to drop out. If you do, maybe there's something
Speaker 1: else that we can kind of carve out for you,
Speaker 1: some other position we can carve out for you. The
Speaker 1: Democrat Party in California has the power to dangle a
Speaker 1: carrot in front of you to tempt you for something good.
Speaker 1: They have the power to menace you with a stick,
Speaker 1: ruin your life, ruin your career if you don't do
Speaker 1: what they want, and the California Republican Party has no
Speaker 1: such power. We have nothing to entice people with because
Speaker 1: our ability to get people jobs or get people elected
Speaker 1: is fairly weak, and we have nothing to threaten people with.
Speaker 1: As a result. You know you do this, you'll never
Speaker 1: run for statewide office as a Republican. Again, well knows
Speaker 1: statewide Republican's going to win anyway. Your threats don't matter
Speaker 1: to me. What is the California GOP going to do
Speaker 1: the California GOP, which by the way, has its own
Speaker 1: problems left right and center. So that is the heart
Speaker 1: of the problem, is the California GOP. We're still living
Speaker 1: with the consequences of the most ineftly run primary campaign
Speaker 1: humanly possible. That we had four people splitting sixty percent
Speaker 1: of the vote going up against two Democrats who split
Speaker 1: forty percent of the vote. It was just an unbelievable
Speaker 1: episode of incompetence leading to this vast majority Republican district
Speaker 1: electing a Democrat because two Democrats were going head to
Speaker 1: head against each other. So now we have to decide
Speaker 1: what we're going to do. Are we going to allow
Speaker 1: Marie Alvarado Guil to stay in office? And then Alvarado
Speaker 1: Gill had an interview with Ashley Zavala, who's this big
Speaker 1: time journalist who covers what goes on in Sacramento really
Speaker 1: one of the most a great follow if you want
Speaker 1: to follow anything that happens with Sacramento politics, Ashley Zavalla,
Speaker 1: and Zavala asked her such point of questions that Alvarado
Speaker 1: gil just stormed out of the interview. It's really it's
Speaker 1: an unbelievably comedic episode. But yeah, this is the most
Speaker 1: glaring example possible of a politician just kind of licking
Speaker 1: their finger, holding it up to the wind and going
Speaker 1: which way the wind blows to such an absurd degree
Speaker 1: that she's actually changing her political party one week after
Speaker 1: endorsing Kamala Harris. Wait, we return my theory about why
Speaker 1: politicians become Republicans or Democrats in the first place. Next
Speaker 1: on The John Girardi Show. Senator Marie Alvarado Gill the
Speaker 1: California State Senator representing the fourth Senatorial District, which includes
Speaker 1: pretty much a huge chunk of the central California Nevada border,
Speaker 1: all the mountainous areas around there, plus some chunks of
Speaker 1: the North Valley, chunks of Madera Mariposa to Alumni, Stanislaus County,
Speaker 1: all of Death Valley too. It's a massive, massive geographical area.
Speaker 1: Senator Marie Alvarado Gill has announced declared to all to
Speaker 1: all in Sundry that she is now a Republican. She's
Speaker 1: going to run as a Republican in twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: for her re election for her state Senate seat. This
Speaker 1: is because Republicans were so stupid that in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two Senate primary for this state Senate seat, they
Speaker 1: ran four Republicans who each got about fifteen percent of
Speaker 1: the vote, and the Democrats ran two Democrats who got
Speaker 1: about twenty percent of the vote each. And in a
Speaker 1: top two primary system, the two Democrats won, the two
Speaker 1: Democrats got to advance, and the four Republicans didn't. This
Speaker 1: in a seat that is about sixty forty Republican leaning.
Speaker 1: So this sixty to forty Republican district, this very safe
Speaker 1: Republican district, winds up electing having to choose on election
Speaker 1: Day twenty twenty two between two Democrats, Marie Alvarado Gill
Speaker 1: gets elected. Marie Alvarado Gill wants to get re elected,
Speaker 1: and so she declares one week after signing this resolution
Speaker 1: from the legislature about how wonderful and consequential a president
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is and how and announcing that she was
Speaker 1: endorsing Kamala Harris for president, she announces that she is
Speaker 1: now a Republican. Oh, the Democratic Party has left her,
Speaker 1: amazing how it left her right at the moment when
Speaker 1: it became most politically expedient. And this gets me to
Speaker 1: my sort of pet theory about politicians. I think most
Speaker 1: elected politicians, most I'm not saying all, but most most
Speaker 1: elected politicians don't have a very strong grounding for why
Speaker 1: they are of the left or of the right. Necessarily.
Speaker 1: I think it's easier to be of the left because
Speaker 1: I think the dominant culture media pushes you left, certainly
Speaker 1: pushes you towards a kind of libertarian way of thinking
Speaker 1: when it comes to ethical things, and that would naturally
Speaker 1: push you towards a more liberal view of various kinds
Speaker 1: of social issues. But I think most people who run
Speaker 1: for office they run for office because they're in some way,
Speaker 1: maybe prominent or successful, and they care about a few things.
Speaker 1: There's probably a few political issues they really care about,
Speaker 1: maybe a few local government things, or tax things, or
Speaker 1: business things or something like that, business regulation, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: or maybe they have a background in public schools or
Speaker 1: university or whatever it is. They have a few things
Speaker 1: that they really care about. And then for the rest
Speaker 1: of their ideology, though, because if you're an American politician,
Speaker 1: you kind of have a whole wide spectrum of things
Speaker 1: you have to care about and have to vote on.
Speaker 1: For a lot of this other stuff, you just kind
Speaker 1: of take on the chameleon appearance of whichever party provides
Speaker 1: you with a lane to power. I've been thinking about
Speaker 1: this certainly. I think Marie Alvarado Gill is a great
Speaker 1: example of this. Okay, uh, Marie Alvarado Gill was sort
Speaker 1: of Democrat, Democrat inclined, probably cared about a couple of
Speaker 1: things that sort of made her a Democrat. She finds
Speaker 1: herself in this preposterously lucky situation of being in a
Speaker 1: heavily Republican state senate district, getting into the top two
Speaker 1: because Republicans were so stupid that they ran you know,
Speaker 1: four people who split the vote between themselves. She somehow
Speaker 1: gets elected because she's able to convince the elector that
Speaker 1: she's more moderate as a Democrat than the guy she
Speaker 1: was running against. She becomes a California state Senator. And
Speaker 1: now she realizes, well, you know, I still like, you know,
Speaker 1: there are a few things where I can kind of
Speaker 1: fudget and say I'm with republic we need smaller government
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah blah, and she completely changes
Speaker 1: her identity on a dime. She goes literally for one
Speaker 1: week talking about what a wonderful president Joe Biden's been
Speaker 1: and endorsing Kamala Harris to the very next week declaring
Speaker 1: that she is a Republican, which if you actually are
Speaker 1: an authentic Republican, there's no way you could a endorse
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris for president or b say that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was this wonderful, historically significant president. It just does not
Speaker 1: make sense to do those things if you are actually
Speaker 1: anything like a sincere Republican. Because I don't think she
Speaker 1: has much of a grounding of anything. I think the
Speaker 1: only thing that's really grounding her is the desire to
Speaker 1: stay in power. And I think this is true of
Speaker 1: a lot of elected people, maybe scarily far more than
Speaker 1: we would like to believe. The person that really I've
Speaker 1: talked about him a little on the show, but the
Speaker 1: person like this that really has bowled me over. Do
Speaker 1: you guys remember Michael Steel. He was the former head
Speaker 1: of the RNC and he was like a lieutenant governor
Speaker 1: of Maryland. So Michael Steele went like full on on
Speaker 1: board with like the Lincoln Project people. Those are the
Speaker 1: former Republicans who are now anti Trumpers, and not just
Speaker 1: anti Trump, but aggressively pro Harris and not just aggressively
Speaker 1: pro Harris, but aggressively pro choice, aggressively just a complete
Speaker 1: MSNBC liberal cheerleader. He became like an MSNBC talking yet
Speaker 1: and he's now like an aggressive liberal cheerleader. And I
Speaker 1: look at him and I think this man was the
Speaker 1: head of the RNC. His job was getting Republicans elected.
Speaker 1: He was like the lieutenant He was a Republican like
Speaker 1: lieutenant governor of Maryland, and then became the head of
Speaker 1: the RNC. His job was getting Republicans elected across the nation.
Speaker 1: And he has so thoroughly flipped that he's posting memes
Speaker 1: about Kamala Harris wearing like a Captain America outfit. So
Speaker 1: was he totally insincere the whole time? What was he doing?
Speaker 1: Did he believe anything the Republican Party believes in? Was
Speaker 1: it all an act? Well, I think people changed their
Speaker 1: political viewpoints to get themselves avenues towards power. He had
Speaker 1: a certain avenue to power as a Republican in Maryland,
Speaker 1: and he took it, and he had a certain avenue
Speaker 1: to power continuing to pretend to be a Republican and
Speaker 1: got to be the head of the RNC, got canned
Speaker 1: from that job, and then saw that he had some
Speaker 1: avenue to I don't know not I guess as a
Speaker 1: Lincoln Project flunky and MSNBC talking head, and he completely
Speaker 1: abandons all of his viewpoints so that he can talk
Speaker 1: smack about Donald Trump, but not just talks back about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, completely repudiate all this Republican stuff he used
Speaker 1: to stand for. I just think self interest for these
Speaker 1: politicians lately. You take the same guy and you have
Speaker 1: him grow up in Clovis, California, or run for an
Speaker 1: office in clothes California. Oh yeah, I'm a Republican. You
Speaker 1: take this same guy and have him run for the
Speaker 1: same office in Boston, Massachusetts. Oh yeah, I'm a Democrat.
Speaker 1: I think people just kind of chameleon camouflage themselves towards
Speaker 1: their environment and whatever will give them a path to
Speaker 1: power when we return, when we return. Some commentary on
Speaker 1: the lawsuit that was filed against Community Hospital for diverting
Speaker 1: money from the Fresno downtown community to the Clovis downtown community. Allegedly.
Speaker 1: This is next on the John Girardi Show. There's a
Speaker 1: lawsuit that's gotten some coverage in local media. A lawsuit
Speaker 1: that was filed against Community health system. And basically the
Speaker 1: long and short of the lawsuit is that Community Health,
Speaker 1: which receives medical money and part of the reason why
Speaker 1: Community Hospital or Community Health, the reason why it's a
Speaker 1: nonprofit is because of its agreement to take lots and
Speaker 1: lots of medical patients and thereby receive medical funding. Now,
Speaker 1: the lawsuit is arguing that Community Hospital was unlawfully diverting
Speaker 1: more funding than is permissible. And this is kind of
Speaker 1: part of where I get a little I'm not quite
Speaker 1: sure about. This was diverting funding away from Community Hospital
Speaker 1: Downtown to Community Hospital Clovis, that that was the focus
Speaker 1: of what Community was trying to do, was to make
Speaker 1: the community hospital in Clovis, which has fewer medical patients
Speaker 1: more private insurance patients, is therefore more profitable to divert
Speaker 1: more and more funding to that, and that this was
Speaker 1: done on lawfully or inequitably. Now, a couple of things
Speaker 1: I want to note about this lawsuit. First of all,
Speaker 1: is who is bringing it. And you know, you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to judge a book by its cover. You're not
Speaker 1: supposed to judge based on appearance. I understand in all that,
Speaker 1: and you should look at this stuff on the merits,
Speaker 1: you know, don't shoot the messenger. I get it, I
Speaker 1: get it. However, the group filing this lawsuit is none
Speaker 1: other than Fresno Building Healthy Communities, under the leadership of
Speaker 1: an old favorite on this show, Sandra Celadon. Yes, that's right, Sandra,
Speaker 1: burn it all down Celadon. So Presno Building Healthy Communities
Speaker 1: is this nonprofit left wing activist group that basically exists
Speaker 1: to hang around city hall advocate for some altruistic liberal cause.
Speaker 1: But it's always with a handout. It's always well, you
Speaker 1: should do this wonderful altruistic liberal thing and give us
Speaker 1: a contract to do it. Oh, we were gonna help
Speaker 1: the city with contact tracing during COVID. I think that
Speaker 1: was one of the It was either them or Barriosunidos
Speaker 1: that was doing that. Anyway, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: these old sure left wing from out of the region
Speaker 1: nonprofits that basically exists to advocate for some left wing
Speaker 1: cause but also get money. They Presno Building Healthy Communities.
Speaker 1: This nonprofit are suing Community Health System for this alleged
Speaker 1: inequity of not diverting enough resources to Community Hospital Downtown,
Speaker 1: diverting too much to Community Hospital in Clovis, so Presno
Speaker 1: Building Healthy Communities and Cultiva la Salute this is the
Speaker 1: other nonprofit that they are the two plaintiffs in this case.
Speaker 1: The lawsuit claims that Community Health funneled. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they are they funneling or just moving or allocating
Speaker 1: whatever billion dollars to the Clovis facility instead of providing
Speaker 1: better staffing and facility upgrades at Community Regional Medical Center.
Speaker 1: This is the write up by Edward Smith in GV wire, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, Edward Smith or anyone from gv wire,
Speaker 1: if you guys are reading this, if you are writing
Speaker 1: about a lawsuit or a legal a decision that's issued
Speaker 1: by a judge, a complaint that was filed in a lawsuit,
Speaker 1: a charging document, and a criminal prosecution, provide the link
Speaker 1: to the pdf. Okay, don't just write a story about it.
Speaker 1: If your post, you're publishing it online, provide a link
Speaker 1: to the pdf. I hate. There's nothing I hate more.
Speaker 1: And it's not just GV wire that does this, by
Speaker 1: the way, or the Fresno b or whoever, like major
Speaker 1: nationwide news outlets will write a whole story about some
Speaker 1: judge's decision in some court case without providing a link
Speaker 1: to the judge's decision so that you can read it yourself,
Speaker 1: which is insane, asinine, and for any lawyer who's trying
Speaker 1: to read or cover the thing, it's a huge pain
Speaker 1: of the butt because then you got to look for
Speaker 1: some other piece that final actually links to it. So
Speaker 1: GB wire, next time you talk about any kind of
Speaker 1: lawsuit anything, provide the link to the PDF. Hopefully someone listens. Now.
Speaker 1: I actually pulled up the PDF of the complaint and
Speaker 1: was reading through. It's pretty long document. I was reading through.
Speaker 1: I won't say I read every single word, but I
Speaker 1: read most of it. The thing that I immediately was
Speaker 1: trying to determine was this issue called standing. Okay, so
Speaker 1: standing is this kind of bedrock principle of American law.
Speaker 1: It's basically, why are you in this courtroom? What right
Speaker 1: do you have to file this lawsuit? Why are you
Speaker 1: the person filing this lawsuit? Why is it your business?
Speaker 1: I asked that about Sandra Celadon and her building presno
Speaker 1: building healthy communities. Why is she able to serve to
Speaker 1: sue community hospital for its decisions about allocating money one
Speaker 1: way or another? What business is it of hers? How
Speaker 1: is she harmed by this? Because generally, for standing, you
Speaker 1: need to have some articulable, concrete harm that you have
Speaker 1: suffered that allows you to have standing. The example I
Speaker 1: always give for this is, Okay, if someone crashes a
Speaker 1: car into Agent Squire's house, I would feel bad for
Speaker 1: my buddy, Agent Squire's intrepid producer of the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: I would feel bad for him. I'd feel upset on
Speaker 1: his behalf. I'd be angry at the guy who negligently
Speaker 1: crashed his car into Agent Squire's house. But I can't
Speaker 1: sue the guy. I can't sue him. Agent Squires has
Speaker 1: to sue him because Agent Squires is the guy who
Speaker 1: actually suffered the harm. Okay, if I try to file
Speaker 1: a lawsuit, I am suing this man for negligence causing damage,
Speaker 1: for crashing an Agent Squire's house, and the judge would
Speaker 1: ask me why are you here? Why are you suing?
Speaker 1: What harm did you suffer? Its all, I was really
Speaker 1: upset your honor. Well, that doesn't count, so I immediately asked,
Speaker 1: looking at this, well, what standing does Fresno Building Healthy
Speaker 1: communities have to sue Community Hospital for its decisions of
Speaker 1: how it's allocating money between one hospital versus the other. Well,
Speaker 1: I look into it more in the grounds on which
Speaker 1: they're California law, apparently on standing is much more loosey
Speaker 1: goosey than it is in a lot of other jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: Are at federal law, and for individual kinds of claims,
Speaker 1: the parameters of who can sue can be much broader
Speaker 1: or much narrower. Now I'm not one hundred percent certain
Speaker 1: on this, but reading some of the different arguments about
Speaker 1: who has standing to sue for misallocation of funds by
Speaker 1: a recipient of medical state funding, it does seem to
Speaker 1: have a fairly broad pool of California seems to make
Speaker 1: it easy to sue. Basically, California seems to have a
Speaker 1: very broad pool, a very broad category of the kinds
Speaker 1: of people who can sue to vindicate such a claim.
Speaker 1: I think that that's preposterous. And from the complaint itself,
Speaker 1: it's saying, well, people who work for Presno building healthy communities,
Speaker 1: a lot of them live in South Fresno and they
Speaker 1: they've been harmed by not having downtown community be as
Speaker 1: nice a hospital as Clovis community, which again is very vague,
Speaker 1: it's very non specific, like like okay, well, what happened?
Speaker 1: Did you have a medical event that was harmed because
Speaker 1: the facilities at Fresno Community are not as nice. No, no,
Speaker 1: we don't mention anything. The other thing that and this
Speaker 1: is another aspect of this that I find obnoxious. This
Speaker 1: is another aspect of how these nonprofits behave that I
Speaker 1: find obnoxious. Is you know who died and made you
Speaker 1: the representative for everyone who lives in South Fresno, basically
Speaker 1: Fresno building healthy communities, saying well, we and the people
Speaker 1: whom we represent, the clients whom we serve that we
Speaker 1: help to try to get healthcare, have been adversely impacted
Speaker 1: by the allocation of money away from downtown community towards
Speaker 1: Clovis community. So this is a thing called third party standing.
Speaker 1: Third party standing is it's kind of what the name implies.
Speaker 1: You're not the primary person harmed, but you have standing
Speaker 1: to sue on behalf of this group of people who
Speaker 1: are harmed. Ordinarily, though, if you're a third party, you
Speaker 1: don't have the right to sue on behalf of someone else. Again,
Speaker 1: I can't sue on behalf of agent Squires. When someone
Speaker 1: crashes a car into his house, Agent Squires has to sue. Now, sometimes, though,
Speaker 1: you can have third party standing if you have close
Speaker 1: ties to a group of people, that group of people
Speaker 1: are prevented from filing a lawsuit in some way, shape
Speaker 1: or form. So again, you have to have some close connection,
Speaker 1: and the people on whose behalf you're trying to sue
Speaker 1: have to be sort of prevented in some way from
Speaker 1: filing the lawsuit themselves. I guess I'm sort of not
Speaker 1: thinking that the people whom Fresno Building Healthy Communities purports
Speaker 1: to represent, why couldn't some of them be plaintiffs? Seems
Speaker 1: ridiculous to me, you know, why can't Okay, Marie Alvarez,
Speaker 1: a resident of Tower District in Fresno, is suing because
Speaker 1: Marie Alvarez and this group of this class of former
Speaker 1: patients who used to who received care at Fresno Community
Speaker 1: between this in this date, who receive substandard care, they
Speaker 1: are all suing for this misallocation of medical funds. But
Speaker 1: this is a thing beyond just the scope of this
Speaker 1: lawsuit and the specific question of third party standing. Does
Speaker 1: Fresno Building Healthy Communities actually have the standing legally to
Speaker 1: sue on behalf of people who live in South Fresno
Speaker 1: beyond just the legal standing question. I feel like they
Speaker 1: always present themselves as like the official spokespersons of South Fresno,
Speaker 1: and they're not. It's this sort of act they put on, like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's the constituency they represent. No, if you want to
Speaker 1: say that, you know, Miguel Arius represents the interests of
Speaker 1: that group of people, Okay, that's fair. He was duly
Speaker 1: elected by the people of whatever his at, whatever the
Speaker 1: boundaries of his city council district are. Or Analisa Perea
Speaker 1: who represents kind of tower district area. You want to
Speaker 1: say she represents that group of people, Okay, she was
Speaker 1: elected to represent that group of people. But don't look
Speaker 1: at me with a straight face and tell me, oh ah, yes,
Speaker 1: Fresno building healthy communities. We're the true representatives of the people.
Speaker 1: Get out of here when we return the Belogney sandwich
Speaker 1: of Jordan Chiles, the American gymnast being forced or told
Speaker 1: to return her bronze medal next on The John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: Had a fun conversation earlier with Ck of Our iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: ck on Sports, which is on Fox Sports thirteen forty
Speaker 1: k is of Ck and Carmen on b ninety five.
Speaker 1: He's one of the main guys for our coverage via
Speaker 1: iHeart of Fresno State Sports, Fresno State Football. I think
Speaker 1: he'll be doing pregame and postgame stuff for Frisno State
Speaker 1: football this year. And he was asking me about Jordan Chiles. So,
Speaker 1: Jordan Chiles is the Olympic gymnast and in the contest
Speaker 1: for the floor exercise, Jordan Chiles did a routine. She
Speaker 1: was given a certain score. The American coaches appealed that score,
Speaker 1: Giles was given a better score. Chiles goes on to
Speaker 1: win the bronze medal days later. A week later, the
Speaker 1: folks from the Olympics say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, sorry,
Speaker 1: we have I don't know what for an accent they
Speaker 1: would have. We have screwed up this going. And they say, no, America,
Speaker 1: you didn't file your appeal for the score quickly enough.
Speaker 1: It was only supposed to be within like I think
Speaker 1: it was sixty seconds, and you took sixty seven seconds,
Speaker 1: like a matter of mere seconds. You were too late.
Speaker 1: So we have to take back her school. And she's
Speaker 1: not supposed to get the bronze medal. This Romanian girl
Speaker 1: is supposed to. So now the whole thing is tied
Speaker 1: up in litigation with this International Tribunal for Sport. So
Speaker 1: I would just say, hey, Jordan Chiles, just hold on
Speaker 1: to your bronze medal. They can't send an army to
Speaker 1: take it from you. That'll do it, John Girlready show
Speaker 1: see you next time on Power Talk