Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BARNETT v DUNN - 32547485 Barnett Response to Erroneous Order From Judge Chang Draft

BARNETT v DUNN - 32547485 Barnett Response to Erroneous Order From Judge Chang Draft

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jun 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Pamela Barnett, June 4, 2010RE: Response to Judge Chang’s Erroneous Order (draft)Judge Chang stated in order “No explanation is given for why plaintiff waited severalmonths after the candidate filed his requisite papers before seeking an OST for anOrder to Show Cause RE: Injunctive Relief.”
Plaintiff only had confirmation thatDamon Dunn’s Declaration of Candidacy and California Voter Registration Formwere erroneous and fraudulent, on or about April 13 when Plaintiff received acopy of the letter from Jean Marie Atkins, Director of Voter Administration, Officeof the Supervisor of Elections, Florida, confirming that Damon Dunn had a priorvoter registration as a Democrat in Florida and tried to get the Florida electionsdepartment to erase his voter registration record. Plaintiff filed a formalcomplaint with the Secretary of State’s Office within a couple weeks on May 3,2010, believing this to be the proper channel for voter, ballot, and election fraud.While waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State’s Election Fraud Division,Plaintiff filed her complaint against Damon Dunn, Debra Bowen, and Edmund G.Brown May 10, 2010.Plaintiff, a pro se party did research into trying to get an expedited hearing onremoving Damon Dunn from the ballot. Plaintiff then submitted an Order to ShowCause for Injunctive Relief May 21, 2010, to have Damon Dunn removed from theballot and not have any votes be counted for him. Plaintiff would have filed this afew days earlier but was out of town on a business matter. The Order to ShowCause was filed under the guidance of Article III, but was rejected by the court.Plaintiff was then denied two times by court officials at the phone line to set upa Ex Parte hearing. Plaintiff was successful on the third attempt, but JudgeChang did not give me the courtesy of a hearing even though all defendants hadrepresentation at the Ex Parte hearing June 2, 2010. Judge Chang saw that allDefendants had representation at the hearing and would she have asked thebailiff to check with Plaintiff to see if she had filed a Declaration of Notice of ExParte hearing, Plaintiff would have given him a stamped Declaration of Notice

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->