~ l u r t n App.

eal
a/tile
&1mof ata.lifnrnia
TBIRDAFPELLATEDISTRICT

CQ7176'f
EDWARD NOONAN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
DEBRA BOWEN, as Secretary of State, etc.et al.,
Defendants and Respondents
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
HON. MICHAEL P. KENNY NO. 34-2012-80001048CUWMGDS
PETITION FOR REHEARING OF APPELLANT PAMELA BARNETT
PAMELA BARNETT, Agent
Private Citizen
Self- Represented Appellant
2351 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 170-921
Rocklin, CA, 95765
pamelabamett@nym.hush.com
'1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION " , 1
II. ARGUMENTS 1
A. THE COURT MISTAKES LAW GOVERNING PETITION, COURT
ERRED BY MAKING ASSUMPTION THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT
BRING PETITION UNDER THE ENTIRETY OF CEC 13314.
THEREFORE, COURT FAILEDTO ADDRESS STANDING AND
JURISDICTION UNDER THE STANDARD TO BRING PETITION
WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A "DUTY REQUIREMENT UNDER CEC
13314. THIS ERROR DENIES PETITIONERS' DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS 1
B. COURT MAKES ASSUMPTION NOT BASED ON FACT OR LAW
THAT SECRETARY OF STATE DUTIES TO INVESTIGATE
ELECTION FRAUD AS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER UNDER CEC
12172.5 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE "DUTIES" UNDER
2
NDSTANDARD
OF 13314 (A)(l), COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS
DEFENDANT BOWEN'S DUTIES AS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER IN
RELATION TO CEC 13314 4
C. COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE SECRETARY OF
STATE HAS NO DISCRETION UNDER OF CEC 6901 EVENT TO
INVESTIGATE AN ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CANDIDATE..........7
D. COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS INELIGIBILITY AND FRAUD
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA..
E. REQUEST APPELLANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY DEFENSE
FEES 8
V. CONCLUSION 9-10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S. Constitution
Article II, Section 1 Clause V 7
1st Amendment " , 10
California Statues
California Government Code 12172.5 .4,6
California Elections Code 6041 .4
California Elections Code 13314 1-10
California Elections Code 18500 11
California Elections Code 18203 10
California Elections Code 6901 7
California Cases
Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4
th
1,5,15
Heidi Fuller v. Debra Bowen, As Secretary ofState, Etc., et al, No. C065237
(Cal.App. Dist.3 03/01/2012) : 16
Other Authorities
11
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Pamela Barnett submits this Petition For Rehearing under Rules of Court
8.268 regarding the 3
rd
Districts Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion dated August
27,2014 for the court's warranted consideration. The 3
rd
District Court of Appeal
made errors in their unpublished opinion filed August 27, 2014, which require a
rehearing as the court has made unfounded assumptions and fails to address matters of
law.
II. ARGUMENT
A.THE COURT MISTAKES LAW GOVERNING PETITION, COURT
ERRED BY MAKING ASSUMPTION THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT
BRING PETITION UNDER THE ENTIRETY OF CEC 13314.
THEREFORE, COURT FAILEDTO ADDRESS STANDING AND
JURISDICTION UNDER THE STANDARD TO BRING PETITION
WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A "DUTY REQUIREMENT UNDER CEC
13314. THIS ERROR DENIES PETITIONERS' DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS
Noonan et al v. Bowen, Obama, Obama for America, is a case of first impression
as petitioners used California Election Code 13314 in its entirety to challenge
"the placing the name" of Defendant Barack Hussein Obama because of his
ineligibility to be President of the United States under the Natural Born Citizen
requirement (U.S. Constitution, Aritic1e II, Section I, Clause V).
/
The appeals court erred in not giving consideration to Appellant Barnett's argument
that as she correctly stated under Elections Code Section 13314 gave the court the
power to grant relief "even without the State having a ministerial duty unfilled." The
opinion from the 3rd District stated the following;
"As we have explained, Noonan and Barnett sought a writ of mandate
here on the theory that the Secretary of State has a duty to investigate
and determine whether a presidential candidate meets the eligibility
requirements of the United States Constitution before allowing the
candidate's name to be placed on the ballot. In essence, then, their
claim was based on the assertion that a neglect of duty was about to
occur insofar as Bowen was going to allow President Obama's name to
be placed on the ballot in the 2012 election cycle without investigating
or determining his eligibility for the office. Of course, to prevail on that
claim they had to show that such a duty existed, which is consonant
with the general requirement that a writ of mandamus will not issue
unless the respondent has a clear, present and usually ministerial duty to
act. (See Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) Thus, Barnett's
assertion that the trial court added a requirement to the Elections
Code is without merit." (Emphasis by Appellant.)
Appellants filed this petition under the entirety of CEC 13314. Petitioners
standards an elector can tile a petition under CEC 13314.(Emphasis and Standard
Clarification by Appellant.)
(a)
(1) An elector may seek a writ ofmandate alleging that an error or
omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing ofa name on, or
in the printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official
matter, (FIRST STANDARD)
or
that any neglect ofduty has occurred, or is about to occur. (SECOND
STANDARD)
(or both standards to bring statute is the jrdSTANDARD.j
At a minimum both the trial court and now the Appeals court have failed to
address Petitioners' right to due process under the first standard of filing under CEC
13314 as bolded above.
The first requirement of CEC 13314 does not say whom had to commit the error
or that a "ministerial duty" or any "duty"had not to be neglected by the State in order
to use the statute as argued on appeal (AOB 12,13). It could be that a candidate
committed an error by not being qualified for the position they are competing for.
(Also, of note, the 2
nd
Standard does not state what duty could be neglected.)
Consequently, like Appellant Barnett argued, the "trial court added a requirement" to
the first standard of filing the petition under CEC 13314.
The petitioners had/have a right under the first standard of CEC 13314to
challenge what they in good faith believe to be an error on the ballot because
Candidate Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible because existing
American case law does not legally support the son of a foreign citizen being a
Natural Born Citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause
V, the Secretary of State's website, and therefore should not be on the ballot because
to do so creates a fraud on the California electorate and subsequently the presidential
electors, and breaks California election laws CEC 18500 and CEC 18203 as noted in
Petitioner's First Amended Petition (Augmentation 1:11).
At no time did Petitioners surrender any right under CEC 13314. In fact, it is
very clearthat Petitioners were using both standards (Standard 3) to file under CEC
13314 (A) 1. Petitioners filed election complaints regarding Obama's ineligibility
under American case law and American history to the Secretary of State to try to
prevent/eliminate the error of adding Obama to the primary ballot as it would be a
fraud on the citizens of California and the presidential electors. Filing the Petition
using CEC 13314 was the next step in the process for Petitioners to try to seek relief
from the State after the Secretary of State refused to investigate potential election
fraud crimes
The facts that constitute an error on the ballot outlined in the Petitioners' petition
exist regardless of a required action by Defendant Bowen or other State official.
Consequently, the lower court and now the Appeals court failed to rule on facts and
law before it.
B. COURT MAKES ASSUMPTION NOT BASED ON FACT OR LAW THAT
SECRETARY OF STATE DUTIES TO INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD
AS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER UNDER CEC 12172.5 WOULD NOT BE
APPLICABLE TO THE "DUTIES" UNDER 2
NDSTANDARD
OF 13314 (A)(l),
COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS DEFENDANT BOWEN'S DUTIES AS
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER IN RELATION TO CEC 13314
The court only addresses that there is not a specific statute that requires the
Secretary of State to vet eligibility of all candidates and remove them from the ballot,
but then said that the Secretary of State can do it when she wants to in their opinion
which constitutes unequal treatment under the law as Defendant Bowen also had facts
and law before her regarding Candidate Obama's ineligibility and failed to act and
actually acted to help him by arguing against Petitioners that she could act
capriciously. Under CEC 13314 (A) (1) the second standard to bring the petition
states very broadly "that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur".
Petitioners brought evidence that Candidate Obama would be a fraudulent candidate
(according to the U.S. Constitution and the qualifications to run for President of the
United States on the sos.ca.gov website) to Defendant Bowen before she added
Defendant Obama to her primary list of candidates under CEC 6041. Petitioners
stated in election complaints that a fraud was going to be committed against the
California electorate and subsequently the California Presidential Electors if candidate
Obama were to be added to the 2012 primary ballot. These formal written complaints
created a duty under for Defendant Bowen. Defendant Bowen did not respond to
Petitioner Barnett's January 2012 election complaint that Defendant Obama did not
meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement under Article II, Section I, Clause V, of
the U.S. Constitution according to American common law and federal case law.
Further, Bowen was notified via Petitioner's First Amended Petition of the Maricopa
County (Arizona) Sheriff's report that the alleged Obama Hawaii birth certificate
posted at whitehouse.gov was an electronic forgery and so was/is his Selective
Service Registration. As the Chief Elections Officer tasked with enforcing election
laws Defendant Bowen should have sided with Petitioners and citizens of California
to get to the truth if Obama was defrauding the California electorate and subsequent
presidential electors by using fraud to promote a perceived eligibility to be President
of the United States. Because this part of the standard to bring the petition under CEC
13314 is broad, and it should be interpreted to include all of her duties, including
her duty as the Chief Elections officer under Government Code 12172.5 where she
has the power to investigate election frauds and has an entire election fraud
department at her disposal and can even refer to district attorneys and the CA State
Attorney General for assistanceI under this statute.
Appellant Barnett attempted to submit documentary evidence via a judicial notice
motion that Candidate Obama has lied to every American by adjusting the timing of
his live broadcast of his alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden to cover for the eligibility
hearing the next morning at the 9
th
Circuit Court of Appeals as well as other
documents like his author biography that stated he was born in Kenyan for 16 years to
show that Obama has unclean hands and cannot be trusted and that the court needs to
allow discovery and a full hearing on Obama's eligibility. Chief Justice Vance W.
Raye against the interest of Appellant Barnett had denied admitting these documents
August 19, 2014, as well as documents that show Obama had/has the Indonesian alias
lCal i fornia Government Code 12172.5. (a) The Secretary of State is the chief elections officerofthe
state, and shall administer the provisions of the ElectionsCode. The Secretary of State shall see that elections
are efficientlyconducted and that state election laws are enforced. The Secretaryof State may require elections
officers to make reports concerningelections in their jurisdictions.(b) If, at any time, the Secretary of State
concludes that state election laws are not being enforced, the Secretary of State shall call the violation to
the attention of the district attorney of the county or to the Attorney General. In these instances, the
Secretaryof State may assist the county elections officer in discharging hisor her duties. (c) In order to
determine whether an elections law violation hasoccurred, the Secretary of State may examine voted, unvoted,
spoiledand canceled ballots, vote-counting computer programs, vote by mailballot envelopes and applications,
and supplies referred to inSection 14432 of the Elections Code. The Secretary of State may alsoexamine any
other records of elections officials as he or she findsnecessary in making his or her determination, subject to
therestrictions set forth in Section 6253.5. (d) The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to assure
theuniform application and administration of state election laws, uniform application and administration of state
election laws. (Emphasis Added.)
b
of Soebarkah (State Department Freedom of Information passport document) and that
it appears his legal mother Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed him from her
passport because he was not a U.S. citizen as well as other documents that show
possible fraud by the Democratic Party under Rep. Nancy Pelosi regarding candidate
Obama's eligibility and 20 other documents.
C. COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE
HAS NO DISCRETION UNDER OF CEC 6901 EVENT TO INVESTIGATE
AN ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CANDIDATE
Arguendo, even if the petitioners brought this petition at the general election
instead before the primary, the Secretary of State had discretion to act on this petition
regardless of CEC 6901, because a Statute cannot be used to hide or leave a possible
crime unprosecuted. In instances, where statutes use absolutes such as "shall" other
States and the federal government have interpreted "shall" to mean "may".
Other Case law and common sense support that if a statute would be allowing the
breaking of another law that the imperative "shall" in a statute will be then be
interpreted as "may". Defendant Bowen or any other Secretary of State should not be
able to use a statute as an excuse to knowingly or unknowingly commit a fraud on the
California electorate by using State power to give legitimacy to a fraudulent candidate
and therefore commission a crime.
D. COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS INELIGIBILITY AND FRAUD CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA
?
The plaintiffs brought an action not only against Debra Bowen, but also against
Candidate Barack Hussein Obama. Hence, the court had to examine not only our
claims against Bowen, but also those we made against Obama. Petitioners allege that
Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.
Petitioners requested that the Court issue a permanent injunction against Obama
barring him from being placed on the ballot for his not being a natural born citizen.
This has nothing to do with Bowen's duties as Secretary of State, but all to do with
whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen and whether he should be allowed
to be place on the ballot. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and/or used fraud to
achieve a perception that he is eligible with allegedly forged birth certificate posted at
whitehouse.gov, he committed a multi-million dollar fraud on tens of millions of
California citizens.
The lower court found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide if Obama is a
natural born citizen, but Petitioners argued on appeal (AOB 14-24) that the court did
have the facts and the law before it to render a decision ofObama's constitutional
eligibility. The appeals court does not address this issue at all in their opinion.
Rather, the court's entire focus is on whether Bowen has a ministerial duty to
investigate Obama's eligibility which it says she does not. Petitioners argued that
Candidate Obama is/was not a natural born citizen, based on admitted facts and the
case law and asked for an injunction against him because he is not a natural born
citizen.
E. REQUEST APPELLANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY DEFENSE
FEES
In the interestofjustice appellants should not have to pay defense fees (Calif. Rules
of Court 8.278 (A)(5)) as the petitioners brought this petition under the entirety of
CEC Section 11314 as a matter of first impression to challenge the eligibility of a
presidential candidate in good faith because they knew an error was about to be made
on the primary ballot in 2012 as all existing American federal case law shows Obama
to be ineligible to be president as he was born with foreign citizenship to a foreigner
father and a competent legal authority, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff
Department performed an investigation of Obama' s alleged Hawaii birth certificate at
whitehouse.gov and declared it a forgery. This petition is also a matter of first
impression of an elector challenging a presidential candidate before the primary
election. Paying of defense fees would chill free speech and deter citizens for
bringing fourth election fraud complaints in the future and bring doubt to the integrity
of California elections as well as disenfranchise legal citizen voters and citizens at
large who have given up on fair elections in California as the Secretary of State
refuses to protect the integrity of elections.
Paying fees of Defense is not warranted against Petitioners and they have a right to
due process of their grievances as they brought their case under the entirety of CEC
Section 13314 regardless of other arguments made but not accepted by court as
convincing.
CONCLUSION
For the court to allow their unpublished opinion to stand without corrections noted
by Petitioner Barnett would amount to a court abuse of discretion as the opinion "as
is" denies due process rights to Petitioner Barnett. Because of the short time to
address the court's unpublished opinion dated Aug. 27, 2014, Petitioner Barnett's
Petition ForRehearing does not fully address the 3
rd
District's Opinion and Appellant
Barnett reserves all rights to add or change arguments for appeal to California
Supreme Court. Petitioner Barnett requests that the honorable court allow this
Petition for Rehearing to be tiled and to grant her prayers for relief.
I, PAMELA BARNETT in esse, agent of PAMELA BARNETT, depose and say
under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the state of California that the above
is true and correct based upon information and belief.
Respectfully Submitted,
i ..... , ')
<, .,;/ ,/</'\
, ;f - t:
",' . " ",',/
Pamela Barnett,Agent'
. Private Citizen, agtG
"'Appellant, Self-Represented, Non-Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In pro per Appellant hereby certifies that pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)(1) or
8.504(d)(1) of the California Rules of the Court, the enclosed Brief of the Appellant is
produced using 13-point or greater Roman type, including footnotes and contains less
than 3,000 words, which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of the
court. Appellant in pro per relies on the word count of the computer program used to
prepare this brief.
Dated: September 11, 2014
Respectfully Submitted,
PA'1\1ELA BARNETT, ent)
AP'pELLANT,
f>l'i'vate Citizen ..-,
APP-D09
PROOF OF SEIWICE (Court of Appeal)
FOR COURTUSE ONLY
0_1 o Personal Service
Notice: This!fann may be used to provide proof that a document has been
served in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal Please read Infonnation
Sheet for ProofofSenfice (Court ofAppeal) (form APP-G09-INFO) before
completing this form.
Case Name: NOONAN v. BOWEN
Court of Appeal Case Number: C071764
34-2012-80001048 CUWMGDS
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
2. My 0 residence 0 business address is (specify):
590 McBean Park Dr., Lincoln, CA,
/
3. I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the follOwing document as indicated below (fill in the name of the document you mailed or
delivered andcomplete either a or b):
Petition for Rehearing ofAppellant Pamela Barnett
a. 0 Mail. I mailed a copy of the document identified above as follows:
(1) I enclosed a copy of the document identified above in an envelope or envelopes and
(8) 0 deposited the sealed envelope(s) with the u.s. Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
(b) 0 placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below,
following our ordinary business practices. I am familiar with this business's practice of collecting
and processing COIJ"8SPOndence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a
sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid.
(2) Date mailed: 9/11/2014
(3) The envelope was or envelopes were addressed as follows:
(a) Person served:
(i) Name: Anthony Hakyl, Ill, Esq., Deputy Attorney General
(ii) Address:
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA, 94244-2550
(b) Person served:
(i) Name: Fredric D. Woocher, Esq.
(ii) Address:
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA, 90024
(c) Person served:
(i) Name: Nathaniel Oleson, Esq.
(ii) Address:
932 D se. Ste. 3, Ramona, CA, 92065
(d) Sacramento Superior Court, 720 9th St., Sacramento, CA, 95814
d Additional persons served are listed on the attached page (write -APP-009, Item 3a" at the top of the page).
(4) I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The document was mailed from
(city and state): Lincoln, CA
Page 1 of2
FoonApproyed for 0pll0naI Use
JUdicial Councilof C8Iib'nia
APP..009[NewJaroaly 1, 2009]
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Court of Appeal)
CASENAME: NOONAN v. BOWEN
3. b. 0 Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy of the document identified above as follows:
(1) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
APP-009
C071764 I
(2) Person served:
(a) Name:
/
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
.....
(d) Time delivered:
(3) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
o Names and addresses of additional persons served and delivery dates and times are listed on the attached page (write
"APP-D09, Item 3b" at the top of the page).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 9/11/2014
PHYLLIS WING
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSOt:!COMPlETING THIS FORM)
APp-oog[NewJanuary 1, 2009]
PROOFOFSERVICE
(Court of Appeal)
Page2of2