Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BARNETT v DUNN - 32546800 Certification of Damon Dunn s Fraud as Well as the SOS s Fraud

BARNETT v DUNN - 32546800 Certification of Damon Dunn s Fraud as Well as the SOS s Fraud

Ratings: (0)|Views: 63 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

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

Availability:

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

06/05/2010

pdf

text

original

 
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
 
filed before the hearing. Plaintiff thought that this Declaration was included in thepacket submitted to the judge before the hearing. To this day my Declaration ofNotice of Ex Parte Hearing has not been docketed but is attached for review(Exhibit ). The fact that all defendants had representation at the hearing, provesthe Defandants were all properly noticed.Plaintiff doesn’t know if Judge Chang actually reviewed all of the documentspresented to the court by Plaintiff, because Plaintiff never had a chance to askJudge Chang because she was denied a hearing of a vitally important electionmatter regarding fraud.
 These statements affirm my due diligence in trying to get a hearing on removingDamon Dunn from the ballot as he is not qualified and properly following court rules ofprocedure regarding noticing of the parties.
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
ORDER DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF
EX
PARTE APPLICATION
1
Case Name
1
Case Number
I
!
The application is granted.
I
I
I
*,:4
-
i
Type of Application
0%
an
mnbr
cM!
Names
of
Appearing Party
I
,..
@?he appiication is denied on the merits of the papers presented to the Court.
i
-
--
-
;
-
-
The appiication is denied without prejudice to its resubmission for the following reason(s):
JUH
-
2
ZOID
1
I
BY
CiT
Rm\a
%art-&
'i~
/
!
/
ri
an
tfi\dr~fh
,
L1
,The?ourt. having considered the above entitled ex parte application mhithout a hearing afler hearingwith appearance as noted above, rules as follows:The moving party may not proceed except by noticed motion,OtherApplication DateCounsel for the
,
is ordered to prepare formal order,
I
,
-..
,
.
.
I
i
-
,,.
. -
-
-
..,
JUN
-
2
2018
,,-~
.
DATE
--
I
>
I
---
.
-..,_Id
1
CI-150
(1012006)
ORIGINAL-CASE FILE YELLOW-SUBMITTING
PARTY
PINK-OFFICE
COPY
Representing

You're Reading a Free Preview

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