Case: 08-17094 07/07/2011 Page: 1 of 3

ID: 7812226 DktEntry: 206

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Nos. 08-17094, 08-17115 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
----------------------------------------------------------MARIA M. GONZALEZ, et al., Pamela Barnett ) e. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Contestant, ) v. v. ) STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., MARIA M. GONZALEZ, et al., ) Defendants-Appellees. Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan, ) Orange County Registrar Neal Kelley, ) THE INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) ) OF ARIZONA, Defendants ) INC., et al., -----------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiffs-Appellants,

On appeal from the United States District Court for the COMPLAINT District of Arizona No. ELECTION CONTEST CV06-01268-PHX-ROS CV06-01362-PHX-ROS

v. KEN BENNETT, in his official capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARIZONA. Defendant-Appellee. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER Because it is now a couple of weeks since the Honorable court has had oral hearings on this action and there has not been a clear order on Movant Barnett’s motion to become amicus curiae, Movant Barnett requests clarification of whether Order issued by Chief Judge Kozinski June 17, 2011 (Docket #203, second sentence - “The brief submitted with the motion shall be filed.”) pertained to her Motion to become amicus curiae and her brief. Movant had phone

communications with Mr. Beasely (not sure spelling) and in a voicemail message stated that order did not pertain to her (but to Arizona only) but was not provided

BARNETT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case: 08-17094 07/07/2011 Page: 2 of 3

ID: 7812226 DktEntry: 206

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

with a name of a clerk directly working with the case and wanted to ensure this information was correct. Movant asks court if her motion is approved to become amicus curiae and whether she should forward 25 copies of her brief to the court for their consideration in this case that affects the rights of all U.S. citizens. Movant’s brief contains vital information that needs to be considered by the court in making their decision.

s/Pamela Barnett______ PAMELA BARNETT Pro Se Amicus Movant 1215 22nd St., Apt. B Sacramento, CA, 95816 Pb_realestate@yahoo.com

BARNETT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Case: 08-17094 07/07/2011 Page: 3 of 3

ID: 7812226 DktEntry: 206

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing Request for Clarification of Order with the Clerk of the Court for United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the Appellate CM/ECF system. I further certify that on July 7, 2011, I served a copy of the foregoing brief on the following parties or their counsel of record by U.S. First Class Mail: Charles E. Borden O’Melveny & Meyers, LLP 1625 Eye St., NW Washington, DC, 2006 Karl J. Sandstrom Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th St., NW Washington, DC, 2005-3960 Chris M. Roll Pinal County Attorney 30N. Florence St., Bldg. D Florence, AZ, 85232

Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Carrie J. Brennan &Thomas M. Collins Assistant Attorneys General 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Melvin R. Bowens, Jr. Navajo County Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 668 Holbrook, AZ s/PamelaBarnett________ PAMELA BARNETT
BARNETT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful