1

3

Pamela Barnett, Pro Se Plaintiff 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA, 95826 Telephone: (415)846-7170 Pb-reaIestate@yahoo.com

5

1 II

PAMELA BARNETT, IN PRO SE
I

A. WOODWARD
Onput, i l e r l

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

9

10

11 12
13

Pamela Barnett, Plaintiff,

) Case No.: 34-2010-00077415
\

14
15
7 U c L

7

18

20

21

EXPARTE APPLICA TlON FOR EMERGENCY RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER VOTES SHOULD BE COUNTED FOR VS. ) DAMON DUNN JUNE 8,2010 Damon Jerrell Dunn (aka Damon Dunn); ) Requested Hearin Debra Bowen individually and officially as ~ ~ J~~~8, 2 10 t ~ : The California Secretary of State; Edmund) Time: 1:45 p.m. G. Brown Jr. (aka Jerry Brown) Officially ) Dept: 54 Judge: Hen. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang as The California Attorney General and individually; and John Doe(s) and Jane Action Filed: May 10,2010 Does, Not set Defendants Trial Date:

1

8:

1

\

1

TO THE COURT:

I, PAMELA BARNETT, declare as follows:
1. I am the pro se Plaintiff in this action. 2. Request hearing June 8. 2010 to determine whether votes should be counted for Damon Dunn for Secretary of State June 8,2010. The Court has been duly notified that Damon Dunn has done the following actions:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

a. Dunn left Block 16 blank on his voter registration form on March 13, 2009 where according to election code he is to fill out his prior registration information even though Florida has confirmed he was registered as a Democrat there; b. Contacted Florida Election Officials to try to erase his voter registration record in July 10, 2009. This action confirms Damon Dunn’s knowledge of his prior voter registration (CEC 18203, 18500); c. Instead of correcting his voter registration form to comply with the NVRA and HAVA State to State notification of change after speaking with the Florida election officials in July, Dunn then goes on to signing his Candidate Intention Statement November 13, 2009 with a perjured and effectively void Voter Registration Form on file. Dunn at this point can no longer use the excuse that he didn’t know that he was registered before; d. Some time after Nov. 13, 20009, Dunn begins to accept donations and solicit nomination signatures based on a fraudulent Candidate Intention Statement CAL ELEC CODE 18203;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

e. Dunn is required to be a registered voter able to vote for the position of Secretary of State at the time he receives his nomination paperwork. CAL ELEC Code 201. Dunn still has not corrected his California Voter Registration Form on file with Orange County. 3. Dunn does NOT meet this qualification to be on the ballot for Secretary of

State under Statute for CAL ELEC CODE 201, and does not meet the requirement to be a Registered Republican for either the 3 or 12 month requirements based on his perjured void voter registration on file under CEC 8001(a)2. However he was also last registered as a Democrat and would need 12 months as a registered Republican under the law.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

This is a vitally important matter before the court, because if the court allows

the count of the votes to occur for an ineligible candidate, Damon Dunn, that did the preceding actions, will the court be complicit in breaking Cal. Elec. CODE 18500 and 18501 codes? This would put a dark cloud on the honorable court and the integrity of the elections in California, and would cause major disenfranchisement of a large group of voters which would then open up the doors to many lawsuits against the State of California. You can’t put a price on the breach of trust of the California electorate.
- 2 EX PARTE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

5. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte request for a hearing June 2, 2010 was erroroneously denied by Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang, and subsequently, so was Plaintiff’s request for a hearing June 4, 2010 to decide whether to remove Damon Dunn from the ballot and/or not have votes counted for him as a Secretary of State candidate. 6. Judge Chang stated in the Order “No explanation is given for why plaintiff waited several months after the candidate filed his requisite papers before seeking an OST for an Order to Show Cause RE: Injunctive Relief.”; to which Plaintiff contends is contrary to the facts that: a. Plaintiff only had a tentative confirmation that Damon Dunn’s Declaration of Candidacy and California Voter Registration Form were erroneous and fraudulent, on or about April 13 when Plaintiff received a copy of the letter from Jean Marie Atkins, Director of Voter Administration, Office of the Supervisor of Elections, Florida, confirming that Damon Dunn had a prior voter registration as a Democrat in Florida and tried to get the Florida elections department to erase his voter registration record;

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

b. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Secretary of State’s Office May 3, 2010, as the proper channel for voter, ballot, and election fraud. While waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State’s Election Fraud Division (that came by mail after May 12, 2010 while I was out of town.), Plaintiff filed her complaint against Damon Dunn, Debra Bowen, and Edmund G. Brown May 10, 2010; c. Plaintiff, a pro se party did research how to get an expedited hearing on removing Damon Dunn from the ballot. While Plaintiff attended an important matter in New York from May 12, 2010 through May 20, 2010. Plaintiff did assign an agent , Shirley Freemen, assigned to file plaintiff’s proposed Order to Show Cause (OSC)

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for an expedited hearing in conformance with any such request for injunctive relief, but the OSC was rejected by the Clerk of the Court 4 days before plaintiff re-filed the Proposed Order to Show Cause for Injunctive Relief May 21, 2010 requesting a expedited hearing to have Damon Dunn removed from the ballot and not have any votes be counted for him. d. Plaintiff was then denied two more times by Court officials despite Plaintiff compliance with each phone line request authorized according to the Superior
- 3 EX PARTE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Court Website to set up an Ex Parte hearing, and in which Phone records are available. After great effort and insistence that the Court follow its own rules, Plaintiff was successful on the third attempt on June 1, 2010 to obtain an ex parte hearing; however despite the requirement of code for Election matters with time as the essence Judge Chang did not give the urgent matter the attention merited for an election fraud complaint even though all defendants had representation at the Ex Parte hearing June 2, 2010. e. That Plaintiff appeared at the Courthouse on June 2, 2010 with all the attorneys / counsels for the Defendants who all waited there for a hearing before the Judge to no avail was never heard; With Plaintiff were Mr. Dunn’s counsel Brian Hildreth Esq. of counsel to BELL, ANDREWS, HILTACHK LLP 455 Capital Mall Suite 801, Sacramento CA. 95814 Telephone (916) 442-7757 fax (916) 442-7759, and Secretary of State Bowen’s and Attorney General Brown’s counsel is Anthony O’Brien Assistant Attorney General (accompanied by three other Assistant A.G.s) California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General “I” Street – Suite 125 Sacramento, California 94244-2550, Telephone: (916) 323 6879 fax (916) 324-8835 anthony.obrien@doj.ca.gov . f. Plaintiff thought that the Clerk included the stamped Declaration of Ex Parte Notice in the submission to the Judge before the hearing. After all the shenanigans by the Clerks, to this day my Declaration of Notice of Ex Parte Hearing after all the unnecessary fanfare with all parties present on June 2, 2010 even now has not been docketed (as of June 4, 2010) but is attached for review (see Exhibit 1). The fact that all defendants had representation at the hearing

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

proves the Defendants were all properly noticed and Judge Change lost an opportunity to render a decision on an important election fraud matter. g. Plaintiff contends that Judge Chang didn’t review the documents presented to the Court by Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsels, had erred because if Judge Chang had granted a hearing on the evidence in the vitally important election matter regarding fraud there would be no other conclusion to reach except that demanded by Plaintiff.

- 4 EX PARTE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING

h. These statements affirm my due diligence in trying to get a hearing on removing Damon Dunn from the ballot as he is not qualified and properly following court rules of procedure regarding noticing of the parties.

7. This Application is based on the following information attached:
the Order to Show Cause for Injunctive Relief which I originally attempted to have filed under Article Ill but had been rejected by the Clerk of the Court on May 14. 2010 and then again with the Ex Parte Hearing June 2, 2008 (see Exhibit 2); The June 2,2010, erroneous Order regarding Ex Parte Hearing by Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang (see Exhibit 3); On June 2, 2010, the Clerk of the Court received Plaintiff's declaration with four additional pieces of evidence (see Exhibit 4): (i) a letter from the Secretary of State dated May 12, 2010 requesting additional evidence of Mr. Dunn's intentional malice; (ii.) The Newspaper Article published by Hermosa Beach Patch showing a picture of Damon Dunn being sewed with the Summons and Complaint in this case and wherein the Article refers I Mr. Dunn's Democratic Party background; (iii.) a Notarized certification of the Apirl 13,2011 letter from the Duval County Registrar; and (iv.) a copy of the March 10,2010 certified Declaration of Candidacy wherein on page 2 Mr. Dunn affirms that he has "no prior registration" before the Orange County Registrar of Voters. That the additional evidence of fraud shown as Exhibit 4 was filed June 2 about 2 p.m. before supposed the Ex Parte Hearing was not docketed by the Clerk even though a document filed after plaintiff's on June 2 by a Defendant was docketed by the Clerk, raises question of unequal treatment of Plaintiff by the Court. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct as of June 4, 2010, at Sacramento, California.

- 5 -

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful