(PC) Von Staich V. California Board of Parole Hearings Et Al

Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 70
EXHIBIT 4
RJN 292
California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information Page 1 of 2
4th Appellate District Division 3 Change court 
Court data last updated: 01/19/2018 10:58 AM

Docket (Register of Actions)
Von Staich v. The Superior Court of Orange County
Case Number G054793
Date Description Notes

04/03/2017 Filed mandate by petitioner: Ivan Von Staich
petition for (M-16867)
writ of: Emailed to AG
Petitioner is a vexatious Litigant
04/04/2017 Opposition Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
requested. Real party in interest may file an informal
response no later than April 19, 2017.
04/11/2017 Granted -
extension of
time. Informal response filed by:. Due on 05/19/2017
By 30 Day(s)
rpi eot for informal response
05/17/2017 Informal Real Party in Interest: The People
response Attorney: Office Of The State Attorney General
filed by: One extension granted for a total of 30 days:
04/11/2017 Granted - extension of time. Due on
05/19/2017 By 30 Day(s)
06/02/2017 Vexatious motion requesting this court allow petitioner to
litigant proceed on his mandate petition with
application permission as vexatious litigant.
filed (initial
case event)
06/02/2017 Received Petitioner's motion requesting reinstatement
document of OSC and appellate project counsel Nancy L.
entitled: Tetreault in accordance with CRC, rule 4.551(c)
(2) RECEIVED ONLY
06/02/2017 Received Petitioner's oppo to respondent's informal
copy of: response RECEIVED ONLY
06/02/2017 Received Petitioner's motion requesting this court
document review relevant administrative hearing
entitled: documents definitively revealing the Governor
violated the evidentiary restrictions under Prop.
89, Voters Initiative November 8, 1988
(RECEIVED ONLY)
06/15/2017 Order THE COURT:* The petition for a writ of
denying mandate/prohibition/habeas corpus is DENIED.
petition Petitioner's request to proceed as a vexatious
filed. litigant pursuant to CCP section 391.7 is
DENIED on the basis of mootness. Petitioner's
request for appointment of counsel, Nancy
RJN 293
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2187878... 1/19/2018
California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information Page 2 of 2
Tetreault is DENIED. Petitioner's request that

this court review administrative documents is
DENIED. O' LEARY, P. J. * Before O' Leary, P.
J., Fybel, J., and Ikola, J.
06/15/2017 Case
complete.
12/11/2017 Record List 122 RF026640961
shipped to
records
center
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.
Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy © 2017
Judicial Council of California
RJN 294
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=2187878... 1/19/2018
COURTOFAPPEAL·4TH DIST DIV 3
Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 FILED
Page 4 of 70
I~ Th£ APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF ~f~j~~\lA

M.C,
Fourth Appellate Distr•ie~t------=---o~e~pu~ty~c~,e~rk
Division Three
* * *
Ivan Von Staich, )

CA4(3) Case No.
( o. c. ---------
Super. Ct. 2016/2017 Case
) No. M-16867; L.A. Super. Ct.
Petitioner, ) Case No. BS141341; CA2(1) Case
vs .. ) No. B264049; CA4(3) Case No.
) G053067)
Orange County Superior Court )
) PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
Department C44, Hon .. Judge:
Cheri T. Pham, ) AND PROHIBITION; REQUESTS FOR
Respondent. ) WRIT OF PEREMPTORY TO ISSUE
) AGAINST THE ORANGE COUNTY. SUPERIOR
Real Parties In Interest:
Warden Josie Gastelo, Governor ) COURT HONORABLE JUDGE Cheri T.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Orange County ) Pham, Department C44;
Deputy Prosecutors Ray Armstrong and)
VERIFICATION BY IVAN VON STAICH
Stephen Sauer, Board of Parole )
BPH COMMISSIONER FERGUSON'S
Hearings Commissioner Jeffrey ) REFUSAL TO TURNOVER CONFIDENTIAL
____________
Ferguson. ) INFORMATION AS REQUIRED UNDER
) CCR §3321 {B); Ochoa v. Superior
Court{2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1274;
Government Code §6258
***PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION***
***REQUEST THAT PEREMPTORY WRIT BE ISSUED***
PRIMARY ISSUE: BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS COMMISSIONER JEFFERY

FERGUSON ON MARCH 15, 2013, REFUSED TO TURNOVER REQUESTED
INFORMATION IN A NEW EVIDENCE 2013 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT, WHICH
COMMISSIONER FERGUSON USED THE SECRET INFORMATION IN THE ALLEGED
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT REGARDING CYNTHIA TOPPER'S OLDER DECLARATIONS,
AS THE SOLE NEXUS OF NEW EVIDENCE TO STOP PETITIONER'S RELEASE
ON HIS PAROLE GRANT CALCULATED MAXIMUM PRIMARY TERM OF 20 YEARS,
WHICH WAS APPROVED ON JULY 30, 2012 BY TOP OFFICIALS IN SACRAMENTO
AT THE "DECISION REVIEW UNIT" UNDER CCR §§2041, (h), 2042 and
2043. See Ochoa v. Superior Court (2012) 199 Cal.App.4th 1274,
12o4 (holding that all confidential information should be revealed
to the prisoner~ with the exception of any informant.) Id. However,
Cynthia Topper is not an informant, but is the victim in
Petitioner• s attempted murder conviction in count II, which was
a nine year determinate sentence.
Ivan Von Staich CDC&R No. E-10079

California Men's Colony-East
Original Appointed Appellate
P.O.Box 8101 (AQ:2148) Counsel: Nancy L. Tetreault
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93409-8101 State Bar No. 150352
346 North Larchmont Boulevard
(Petitioner In Propria Persona)
Los Angeles, Ca. 9004
RJN 295
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page:
Petition For Writs of Mandate And Prohibition ••••••••••••••••••••••• !
Multiple Pr ayer for Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • .12
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Memorandum of Points And Authorities .................. Throughout Petition
A. The Superior Court Failed To Properly Address That The 2013

BPH Co1amissioner Fer 6 uson Violated Petitioner's Due Process
Right To Review The New Evidence, Within The Confidential
Report Re 6 arding Cynthia Topper's Older 1989 And 1993
Declaratior1 • • • • • • • • • • "· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
B. The California Code Of Regulations Under §2235, Subd.
(a) Was Disre6arded By Tne Respondents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
C. The Respondents Refuse<l To Strictly Followed THe Ap~ellate

Court Puolished Ruling Governing Over The Prisoner's Due
Process Right To Receive The Requested Confioential
Inf O 'C rr1a ti On • • • • • • • Cl •• e ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
D. Petitioner Also Exhausted His Los Angeles County Superior

Court Claim In His "Second Amended Mandate" That Governor
Etiwund G. Brown Violated The Mandatory Provisions Of The
California Constitution, Article V, Section 8, Subdivision
(B), When He Accepted New Evidence In A Secret Lett.er From
Local Deputy Prosecutor f{ay Armstrong, Which Contained For
The First Time Petitioner's "Court Ordered" Stricken Juvenile
Record And The Declarations From Cynthia Topper •••••••••••••••••••• 7
E. Narch 15, 2013 Board Commissioner Ferguson

To Reveal Failed
Where He 0Dtainec1 The New Confidential Information Frorn Regarding
Cy n t. hi a Top p er • s O 1 de r 198 9 And 1 9 9 3 Dec l l:l rat ions , And Therefore ,
Has Not Established Why His Report On Cynthia Topper's Declarations
ls Confictential And Cannot Be Reviewed By Petitioner's Private
Cou11sei t'1ichael Bee.Kman •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .8
RJN 296
Continued Table of Contents
Page:
F. The Orange County Superior Court Has Definitively Stated In
Its March 10, 2017 Order That The September 14, 2011 Board
Commissioners Set Petitioner's Maximum ISL Term At 20 Years,
However, Under In re Rodriguez (Cal.1975) 14 Cal.3d 639 All Maximum
Primary Terms Are Set By The Board Commissioner After They Make
The Decision To Find The ISL Prisoner Suitable For Parole Release,
Therefore, Under Proposition 89, The Governor Can Only Stop An
Early Parole Grant, But Does Not Have The Authority To Override
Tne Maximum Primary Term--rii" This Case, Approved By Sacramento
Top BPH Officials On July 30, 2012, Which The Governor Did Not
Review, Nor Has The Governor Any Authority To Override The Adjusted
Base Term Setting Under The Butler Settlement As Set Forth In
In re Butler (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1222 • ••••••••••••••••.•••••••.• 9
G. Petitioner Has A "VESTED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" That His One Count

Second De6ree Murder Sentence Will Not Be Changed Into A De Facto
Life without The Possibility Of Parole Under Mardesich v.
California Youthful Offender Parole Board (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th
1351. • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
Table of Authorities
In Re Powell (Cal.1988)
45 Cal.3d 894 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
In re Prewitt (Cal.1972)
8 Cal • 3 d 4 7 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 , 5 , 13
Morrisey v. Brewer (U.S.1972)

408 U.S. 471 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3
Ochoa v. Superior Court (2011)

199 Cal.App.4th 1274 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• S,6
In re Copley (2011)
196 Cal.App.4th 427 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7,12,8
In re Arafiles (1992)
6 Cal.App.4th 1467 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
In re Rosenkrantz (Cal.2002)
2 9 Cal • 4th 616 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8
In re Smith (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 489 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (Cal.1983)

32 Cal.3d 440 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2012)

203 Cal.App.4th 292 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
ii
RJN 297
Table of Authorities Continued:
Page:
Williams v. Superior Court (Cal.1993)
5 Cal.4th 337 ..•...••..........•....•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
In re Rodriguez (Cal.1975)
14 Ca 1 . 3 d 6 3 9 . • . . . • • . • • . . . • • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 9 , 1 0 , 13
In re Butler (2015)
236 Cal.App.4th 1222 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9,11,13
People v. Wingo {Cal.1975)

14 Cal.3d 639 . . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10
0 ••••••••
In re Schoenfeld, CAl(l)
2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1465 . . . . . . . . . 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10
Mardesich v. California Youthful Offender Parole Board (1999)
69 Cal.App.4th 1351 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11
Fukuda v .. City of Angels Camp (1998)

63 Cal.App.4th 1426 . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 12
In re Caswell (2001)
92 Cal.App.4th 1017 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13
In re Gomez (2010)
190 Cal.App.4th 1291. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
In re Ryner (2011)
196 Cal.App.4th 533. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
In re McDonald (2010)
189 Cal.App.4th 1008 •• •••• 8 ....................................... 13
In re Twinn (2010)
190 Cal • Ap p • 4th 4 4 7 • • • • • • . • • • G • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13
~i\~~~~~~~-~~~~~.:~~~: .......................................... 14
§3041. 2 (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 7,13
California Code of Regulation, Title 15:

§2235, (a)• •••••• • • •• 4
~3321, ( b ) • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••• 4
§3321, (b)(3) ••••• .......... •••••• • ••• 4
..
....... . .. . . ...... . ••.. . •• 11
. . . . ..
~2402 (c). •.
~2041, (h). .. . . .•... 11
§2042 ••••••••••••• ..... ..... . • ....•••••...•.•.•.. 11
§ 2043 •••••••••• . .
..... ... ........ . . ...... • ....•..• 11
§2450 •••••••••••••••• . ... .
..... .... . . . .. . . .. ••• 13
iii
RJN 298
Table of Authorities Continued:

Page:
California Constitution:
Article V, §8, Subd. (b) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7,13
Code of Civil Procedure:
§1094, 6, subd. (f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.6
§2015.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Exhibits Presented Herein Provided:
Exhibit 11 A": Orange County Superior Court 2017 final order

denying all relief on Mandate/Habeas petition ••••••••••••• attached
Exhibit "B": CA4(3) June 22, 2016 order allowing Petitioner

to file his O.C. superior court petition •••••••••••••••••• attached
Exhibit "C": July 30, 2012 BPH "Decision Review Unit's"

approval affirming Petitioner's 20 year MAXIMUM primary
term ............................................................ attached
Exhibit 11 D11 : 2013 relevant portion of the BPH transcripts where

Petitioner private BPH counsel objected on the administrative
hearing record to not being allowed to review the confidential
report regarding Cynthia Topper's older declarations ••••••• attached
Exhibit "E" for reference to Petitioner's request to be provided

a copy of the 2013 confidential report regarding Cynthia Topper's
older declarations used by the commissioner as the sole nexus
to deny Petitioner's July 30, 2013 maximum 20 year parole grant
approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . attached
Exhibit "F" for reference to news article providing evidence that

local Orange County deputy prosecutor Ray Armstrong sent the
Governor Edmund G. Brown a secret letter contanting Petitioner's
"Court Ordered" stricken juvenile record and information regarding
Cynthia Topper's older declarations used as the basis for the
2013 confidential report ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• attached
Exhibit 11 G11 for reference to "Second Amended Mandate" filed in

the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which contained exhaustion
of Petitioner's Proposition 89, Nov. 8, 1988 argument ••••••• attached
Exhibit "H" for reference to recent Contra Costa County final

entry of judgment in Barker v. BPH Executive Officer Jennifer
Shaffer, Case No. NlS-2218, definitive judgment that CCP §1094.6,
subd. (f) 90 day notice "cover letter" applies to ALL BPH
parole hearings, order issued by Hon. Jugde Jill C.
Fannin •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• attached
81
Exhibit 88 1 for reference to Orange County Superior Court Judge
Robert R. Fitzgerald's May 30, 1986 "Court Order" striking
Petitioner's entire juvenile record from the Probation Officer's
Keport ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••• attached
iv
RJN 299
Additional Table of Authorities Cited:
People v. Duran (1983)

140 Cal. App. 3d 485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
In re Scott (1984)
150 Cal.App.3d 639 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 12
In re Stoneroad (2013)
215 Cal.App.4th 596 ............................................... 13
In re Shaputis (Cal.2011)
53 Cal.4th 192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2008)

167 Cal.App.4th 1063 ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
Jocobson v. Schwarzenegger (C.D.Cal.2004)

357 F.Supp.2d 1198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bollenger v. Doctors Medical Center (1990)

222 Cal.App.3d 1115 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
Additional Exhibits Presented:
Exhibit 111 J 111 for reference to definitive proof BPH Officials in

Sacramento have completely repealed ALL administrative appeals
or grievances filed by ISL prisoners against the Board Hearing
Commissioners, who refuse to turnover confidention information
to the inmate or his private BPH counsel •••••••••••••••••• Attached
Exhibit 11 K111 for reference to recent unpublished decision issued

by the Second Appellate District Court, Division (1), In re JOHN
RAFAEL LAPONTE, July 29, 2016, CA2(1) Case No. B267768 at p.9,
Petitioner ISL prisoner has a constitutional right to have
his Butler adjusted base term set proportional to his commitment
offense •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• attached
y
RJN 300
Ivan Von Staich CDC&R No. E-10079

P.O.Box 8101 (AQ:2148)
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93409-8101
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Fourth Appellate District

Division Three
•••
CA4(3) Case No ..
Ivan Von Staich,
)
)
----------
( 0. C.. Super.. Ct.. 2016/2017 Case
) No.. M-1686 7; L.A. Super. Ct.
) Case No. BS141341; CA2(1) Case
Petitioner, No. B264049; CA4(3) Case No.
vs. )
) G053067)
Orange County Superior Court )) PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE
Departaent C44, Hon. Judge: ) AND PROHIBITION; REQUESTS FOR
Cheri T. Pham, ) WRIT OF PEREMPTORY TO ISSUE
Respondent. AGAINST THE ORANGE COUNTY
Real Parties In Interest: ) SUPERIOR COURT HONORABLE JUDGE
Warden Josie Gastelo, Governor ) Cheri T. Pham, Department C44;
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Orange County ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Deputy Prosecutors Ray Armstrong and)) AUTHORITIES; VERIFICATION BY
Stephen Sauer, Board of Parole IVAN VON STAICH
Hearings Commissioner Jeffrey ~
Ferguson. ~
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE KATHLEEN O'LEARY AND ASSOCIATE

JUSTICES AND RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY, Please Take Notice:
PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION
* * *
REQUEST FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE BE ISSUED
* * *
I. Introduction.
Petitioner Ivan Von Staich, moves this Honorable Appellate
Court for an order reversing the Or-nge County Superior Court• s
March 10, 2017 mandate/habeas corpus order denying all relief.
(See Exhibit "A" for reference to Orange County Superior Court
denial order dated March 10, 2017.) This Honorable Appellate Court
Page-1-Petition For Writs of Mandate/Prohibition
RJN 301
issued an order on June 22, 2016 Case No. G053067, regarding the
original mandate filed in the L.A. Super. Ct. Case No. BS141341.
In this Court• s order Petitioner was allowed to refile his Los
Angeles County Superior Court grounds for relief, which he has
now done and has received final judgment order. The Los Angeles
County Superior Court mandate was filed in the month of January,
2013. The Los Angeles Superior Court mandate addressed the relevant
Fn.1/
fact that the March 15, 2013 (BPH) parole board Commissioners
waoe-up a confidential file on the female victim Cynthia Bess
Topper, the female directly associated with Petitioner's
determinate sentence of 9 years the attampted murder count II
charge 11 which is separate from the present ongoing indeterminate
sentence of 15 years, regarding the count one second degree murder
conviction from 34 years in the past. The Los Angeles mandate
petition addresses the relevant fact that the 2013 BPH Commissioner
Jeffery Ferguson refused to turnover the confidential report he
initiated on his own accord, which supposedly contains a nexus
of information as to why in 2013 Petitioner was unsuitable for

811
parole release. (See Exhibit B1111 for this Court's prior order .. )
Petitioner presented several other grounds for relief in
his Los Angeles County Superior Court mandate petition, which
was not addressed by this Court or the recent Orange County
Superior Court in its March 10, 2017 order. Petitioner also argues
in the 2013 Los Angeles mandate, within the amendments, that
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., violated the statutory provisions
of Proposition 89, voters initiative, November 8, 1988. The

.....F_n__l_/.,...._S_e_e_E....x_h_1._·b_i_t_".G" for reference to "Second Amended Mandate"
0
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court as an aaendment after

the March 15 1 2013 parole bearing.
RJN 302
Governor received a secret letter from the local prosecutor Ray
Armstrong containing Petitioner's "Court Ordered" stricken juvenile
record and information regarding Cynthia Topper's older
declarations from 1989 and 1993. The older declarations were used
by the 2013 Commissioner Ferguson as the basis of some unrevealed
confidential report, which Commissioner Ferguson used as ~
evidence, considered by Commissioner Ferguson as the only nexus
to deny Petitioner's previous parole grant. Commissioner Ferguson
refused to turnover any information within the confidential report
after Petitioner's private counsel requested to see the alleged
2013 confidential report.
11. Additional Points And Authorities Supporting Petitioner's
Contentions That His Private Counsel Should Have Been Allowed
To See The Alleged Confidential 2013 Report Made-Up By The Request
Of Commissioner Ferguson Alone.
A. The Superior Court Failed To Properly Address That The 2013

BPH Commissioner Ferguson Violated Petitioner's Due Process Right
To Review The New Evidence, Within The Confidential Report
Regarding Cynthia Topper's Older 1989 And 1993 Declarations.
Petitioner has a state due process right under the appropriate
regulations to review all confidential information in any parole
hearing report used as evidence to deny parole, with the exception
of the names of informants. See In re Powell (Cal.1988) 45 Cal.3d
894, 904 ( "It is indisputable, of course, that the Board could
not have based its rescission on the Gravitt allegation without

giYing Powell an opportunity to confront and cross-examine
witnesses. (See Morrisey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 488-489
(33 L.Ed.2d 484, 495-499, 92 S.Ct. 2593]; In re Prewitt (Cal.1972)

RJN 303
8 Cal.3d 470, 473-474.") (Ibid., emphasis added.) Petitioner parole
release maximum 20 year term was approved by Top Officials at
the Sacramento "Decision Review Unit" on July 30, 2012. However,
the Governor has never reviewed this evidence. Petitioner's private
attorney was never afforded his legal right to review the alleged
new evidence in the 2013 confidential report, or to cross-examine
any witnesses to the contents therein alleged to be a nexus to
STOP Petitioner's July 30, 2012 parole approval. (See Exhibit

"C" for reference to July 30, 2012 parole approval; see Exhibit
"D" for reference to 2013 BPH private counsel's objection to ~
being allowed to review the 2013 confidential report allegedly
containing nexus evidence.)
B. The California Code Of Regulations Under §2235, Subd. (a) Was

Disregarded By The Respondents.
Under CCR §3321, subd. (a) we read: "Reliability. The
reliability of confidential information to be used shall be
established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel. A finding
of reliability shall be documented by the hearing panel. A hearing
may be continued to establish the reliability of the information
or to request the department to designate the information as
nonconfidential. .. ) (Ibid., emphasis added.); see also Code of
Regs. tit. 15 ~3321, subd. (3)(B): ("As much of the information
as can be disclosed without identifying its source including an
evaluation of the source's reliability; a brief statement of the
reason for the conclusion reached; and, a statement of reason
why the information or source is not disclosed.") (Ibid.) The
Respondents have never complied with this discloser of confidential

RJN 304
information requested both by Petitioner and his private counsel.
C. The Respondents Refused To Strictly Followed The Appellate

Court Published Ruling Governing Over The Prisoner• s Due Process
Right To Receive The Requested Confidential Information.
Petitioner positively asserts he requested the Respondents
to turnover the alleged "confidential report" regarding Cynthia
Topper's older declaration, but was refused because the Board
of Parole Hearings has completely repealed all administrative
appeals or written grievances regpr~ BHl "confidential information."
(See Exhibit "E" for reference to Petitioner• s written request
to the BPH records officer to turnover the "confidential
information 11 regarding Cynthia Topper's older declarations.)
Petitioner also requested the confidential information under the
published citations, see Ochoa Y. Superior Court (2011) 199
Cal.App.4th 1274, 1284 ("The position comports with Prewitt case
by case approach as it is designed to "consider the objectives
sought to be achieved by the challenged procedure, the possible
unfairness to the prisoner, and the availability of alternative
procedures which are less burdensome to the prisoner. (In re
Prewitt (Cal.1972) 8 Cal.3d 470, at p. 475.") (Ibid., emphasis
added.) What is important here, Petitioner already knows the
alleged "confidential information report 0 is based on Cynthia
Topper's older declarations, so there is no problem with the
Respondents exposing some unknown informant. See Ochoa, supra,
at p. 1282: ( "But the Prewitt rationale does not apply if "a·
disclosure will impose a risk of harm to some informant ••• ( In
re Prewitt (Cal.1972) 8 Cal. 3d 4 70, at P• _,

475· see In re Love
( Ca 1. 197 4 ) 11 Ca L 3 d 179 , 18 5 [ 113 Ca L Rp tr • 8 9 , 5 20 P• 2d 713 ]

RJN 305
Lno disclosure where an informant would be endangered"].)
In this case, the alleged confidential information is the
report regarding Cynthia Topper• s older declarations send to the
Governor Edmund G. Brown with a secret letter by local deputy
prosecutor Ray Armstrong. (See Exhibit "F" for reference to news
paper article revealing prosecutor Ray Armstrong sent the Governor
a secret letter, and that is, prosecutor Ray Armstrong failed
to send Petitioner a cover letter under Civil Code of Procedure

Fn. 2/
~1094.6, subd. (f), informing ••• Petitioner he was sending the
declarations from Cynthia Topper and Petitioner's "Court Ordered"
stricken juvenile record.
Bottom line, Petitioner, or Petitioner's private counsel
Michael Beckman should have be provided a copy of all the
information in the alleged confidential 2013 report, which was
used by the 2013 Commissioners is sole basis of evidence considered
a nexus to Petitioner's nearly 35 year old second degree murder
conviction. The superior court has failed to evaluate all the
evidences regarding the original 2013 mandate petitions filed
originally in the Los Angeles Superior Court, and later transferred
on appeal by the California Supreme Court to the this appellate
court under case no. G053067. (See Exhibit "G" for reference to
the "Second Amended Mandate Petition" filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court as evidence of Petitioner's •••• reliance on the
published citation Ochoa v. Superior Court, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th
at P• !lli•)
Fn. 2/ Civil Code of Procedure §1094.6, subd. (f) applies to all
administrative hearings, including in this case, the Governor's parole
grant review process under Penal Code §3041.2 et seq., and
therefore, the Governor's February 10, 2012 parole review report should of
been sent directly to Petitioner with the required "cover letter"
informin* Petitioner he only had 90 days to file this mandate, see
RJN 306
Exhibit ii" for "Entry of Judgment" against BPH under §1094.6, (f).
D. Petitioner Also Exhausted His Los Angeles County Superior Court

Claim In His "Second Amended Mandate" That Governor Edmund G.
Brown Violated The Mandatory Provisions Of The California
Constitution,ArticleV~ Section 8, Subdivision (B), When He Accepted
New Evidence In A Secret Letter From Local Deputy Prosecutor Ray
Armstrong, Which Contained For The First Time Petitioner• s "Court
Ordered" Stricken Juvenile Record And The Declarations From Cynthia
Topper.
Petitioner additionally set forth in his "Second Amended
Mandate" in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the newly
filed Orange County Superior Court Mandate/Habeas Petition that
Gowernor Edaund G. Brown deliberately violated the Cal. Const.,
art. V, §8, subd. (b), restriction on parole grant review to the
evidence considered by the parole granting Board Commissioners.
The September 14, 2011 Board Commissioners did ~ consider any
juvenile record when they granted Petitioner• s parole 2 however 1
the Governor illegally received in the mail~ secret letter from
local deputy prosecutor Ray Armstrong Petitioner's stricken
juvenile record, which the Governor exclusively relied upon to
reverse Petitioner's parole grant.
The Governor is restricted under Proposition 89, November
8, 1988 voters intiative to review only the evidence provided
to him by the parole granting Board Commissioners. See In re Copley
(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 427, 433 ("By contrast, the Governor's
constitional authority is limited to a review of the materials
p resent e d by the Bo a rd • ( Ca 1. Cons t • art • V, §8 , sub d • (b) ; see
also Penal Code, § 3041. 2, sub d. (a).) Furthermore, the Governor's
review on the Board's decision is limited to consideration of
the record before the hearing panel. (In re Arafiles (1992) 6
Cal.App. 4th 146 7, 1477-1478 [8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492) (Araf iles); see
RJN 307
also In re Rosenkrantz (Cal.2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, at pp. 660-661;
In re Smith (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 489, 507 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d
781).') (Ibid., emphasis added, Copley, at p. 433.)
E. March 15, 2013 Board Commissioner Ferguson Failed To Reveal

Where He Obtained The New Confidential Information From Regarding
Cynthia Topper's Older 1989 And 1993 Declarations, And Therefore,
Has Not Established Why His Report On Cynthia Topper's Declarations
Is Confidential And Cannot Be Reviewed By Petitioner's Private
Counsel Michael Beckman.
Petitioner positively asserts the Respondent BPH Commissioner
Ferguson has failed to reveal were he obtained the confidential
information regarding Cynthia Topper's older declarations, such
as, did his information come directly from law enforcement
officials? See American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v.
Deukmejian (Cal.1983) 32 Cal.3d 440, 450 fn. 11 ("We agree with
the trial court that information is ~ confidential in this
context unless treated as confidential by its original (source.]
Thus information does !!.2!:_ become confidential becaus'.e the California
De~artment of Justice and the submitting law agency agree to treat
it as such. It is confidential only if the law enforcement agency
obtained it is confidential.") (Ibid., emphasis added.) BPH
Commissioner Ferguson failed to provided any information that
his confidential report regarding Cynthia Topper's old declarations
was obtained from a law enforcement agency and was designated
as confidential as the original source. Also, see Long Beach Police
Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 292,
311 ([Citing] Williams v. Superior Court (Cal.1993) 5 Cal.4th
337, 355, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 859 P.2d 377 ( 'the law does not
RJN 308
~rovi de, that a public agency may shield a record from public
disclosure, regardless of its nature, simply by placing it in
a file labeled investigatory.' .. ) (Ibid.)
Bottom line, Petitioner or Petitioner's private counsel should
have been allowed to review or receive a copy of the BPH alleged
confidential information regarding Cynthia Topper's old
declarations, used as new evidence to stop Petitioner parole grant
approval issued on July 30, 2012, and the setting of Petitioner's
maximum primary term at 20 years.
F. The Orange County Superior Court Has Definitively Stated In

Its March 10, 2017 Order That The September 14, 2011 Board
Cowmissioners Set Petitioner's Maximum ISL Term At 20 Years,
However, Under In re Rodriguez (Cal.1975) 14 Cal.3d 639 All Maximum
Primary Terms Are Set By The Board Commissioner After They Make
The Decision To Find The ISL Prisoner Suitable For Parole Release,
Therefore, Under Proposition 89, The Governor Can Only Stop An
Early Parole Grant, But Does Not Have The Authority To Override
The Maximum Primary Term In This Case, Approved By Sacramento
Top BPH Officials On July 30, 2012, Which The Governor Did Not
Review, Nor Has The Governor Any Authority To Override The Adjusted
Base Term Setting Under The Butler Settlement As Set Forth In
In re Butler (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1222.
Petitioner positively asserts the Governor has ~ authority

under Proposition !2.i. voters initiative Nov. ii_ 1988 2 to override
~ maximum primary term under In ~ Rodriguez, supra, 14 Cal. 3d
639 or the Butler settlement as stated in In re Butler, supra,
236 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1241 fn. 12. Therefore, Petitioner's maximum
primary term is enforceable requiring Petitioner's release on
parole. The long standing rule used by the Parole Board up until
Rodriguez, that all ISL prisoners are serving straight life
sentence at the discretion of Board was overruled, and Rodriguez
nas never been overturned to Rodriguez,

this date. See supra,
RJN 309
14 Cal. 3d at p. 652: ( "The oft-stated rule that a prisoner has
no right to a term fixed at less than maximum (In re Schoengarth,
supra, 66 Cal.2d 295, 57 Cal.Rptr. 600, 425 P.2d 200; In re Cowen
(1946) 27 Cal.2d 637, 641, 166 P.2d 279) is therefore subject
~ overriding constitutionally compelled qualification

--
that the
--
maximum may not be disproportionate to the individual prisoner's
offense. (People !..:. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169 2 ante, .2..2.!. 169 2
182 1 121 Cal.Rptr . .2L._ 534 P.2d 1001.) 11 (Ibid.)
Rodrigues goes on to state at p. 652: ( "The basic term-fixing
responsibility of the Authority is independent of the Authority's
_l)ower to grant parole and of its discretionary power to later
reduce the term thus fixed, which fixed, constitutionally
proportionate, term we shall hereafter ref er to as the • primary

180
~· ) (Ibid., emphasis added.) The Governor under Proposition
89 only has the power to reverse the early parole grant release
date, but does not have the authority to reverse the maximum
primary term which is set seprately from the parole grant date.
See the unpublished citation of In re Schoenfeld, CAl(l), 2012
Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 1465 *3 ("While the Board determined his
period of confinement under the DSL regulations, it did not do
so under the ISL Prior Board Rules until Schoenfeld filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court granted.
(See In re Schoenfeld (Aug. 4, 2010, A127680 (nonpub. opn.[.)
The Board!:.!!!!!. set a "total" ISL period of confinement of 45 years
4 months, which included the maximum period under the Prior Board
Rules matrix for each of the remaining 26 counts of which he had
been convicted.") (Ibid.) Herein, on September 14, 2011 the Board

RJN 310
Corumissioners found Petitioner parole suitable, thereafter,

Petitioner's attorney requested they calculate Petitioner's maximum
primary term, which after some reluctance, the September 14, 2011
Board calculated Petitioner's maximum primary term at 20 years
under the matrices Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §2402 (c). This maximum
was reaffirmed by the BPH "Decision Review Unit" on July 30, 2012,
which the Governor never review. Therefore, this maximum 20 year
proportional primary term is enforceable. See Butler, supra, 236
Cal.App.4th at p. 1241 fn.12 for reference to maximum ISL primary

fn.3/
term;is considered a maximum discharge date.
G. Petitioner Has A "VESTED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" That His One Count

Second Degree Murder Sentence Will Not Be Changed Into A De Facto
Life Without The Possibility Of Parole Under Mardesich v.
California Youthful Offender Parole Board ( 1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th
1351.
Petitioner positively asserts the Respondents in this case
have completely failed to address in any degree that on July 30,
2012. the "Decision Review Unit" in accordance with the· mandatory
language in Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15 §§2041 (h), 2042, 2043
made the decision to affirm and approve Petitioner's parole grant,
setting Petitioner's maximum primary term at 20 years, as stated
in the Orange County Superior Court Har ch 10, 2017 denial order.
Petitioner holds a "Vested Fundamental Right" that his maximum
20 year term oe enforced as primary terms cannot be overrode by
the Governor in this case, who failed to review the July 30, 2012
enforceable parole approval order. See Mardesich, supra, 69

Cal.App .4th at pp. 1366-1367 ( "When an administrative decision
Fn. 3/ See People v. Duran (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 485, 503 <."Under
the statute then, the penalty for second degree murder will be
fixed at definitive number of year--anywhere from 15 to life.
Once this figure has been determine,?, the. defendant. woul~ be
release as soon as his term expires. ) (Ibid., emphasis added~)
Petitioner only needsto b e found suitable ~ time to have his
maximum erimary term set, which occurred .2_!! September 14, 2011,
RJN 311.. )
and~ affirmed~ July 30, 2012.(See Exhibit ""K" for reference
affects a right which has been legitimately acquired or is overwise
"vested,.. and when that right is of a fundamental nature from
the standpoint of its economic aspect .!!f. its effect ..:.. ..:.. ..:.. in human
teras and the importance to the individual !.2_ relegate it ~
exclusive administrative extinction" [ violates that individual• s
due process right.] (Ibid., emphasis added, see Fukuda v. City
of Angels Camp ( 199 8) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1429, same, but applying
Fn.4/--
this standard under appellate review.)
Conclusion
Bottom line, Petitioner is now a senior citizen over the
age of 60, and has been incarcerated his entire adult life, should
Petitioner• s second degree murder jury verdict be chanced to a
de facto life without the possibility sentence? If this Court
follows the law regarding primary terms as started in Rodriguez,
supra, 14 Cal. 3d at p. 652-656, primary terms cannot be overruled
by the Governor under· Proposition 89, Nov. 8, 1988. Proposition
89 ooes not address primary term in any degree, see Butler, supra,
236 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241 fn.12, definitively stating that primary
terms are actually maximum discharge dates.
Multiple Requested Prayer For Relief
1. Petitioner request relief as stated in Copley, supra, 196

Cal.App.4th at p. 432: ("In re Love (Cal.1974) 11 Cal.3d 179 [113
Cal .. Rptr. 89, 520-V:-2d 713) [failure to provide inmate with a
confidential report before revocation ?arole hearing violated
due process; remedy was to provide the report and a ~ revocation
hearing"J.") (Ibid., emphasis added, Copley, at p. 432). Petitioner
should have been provided a rescission hearing based on the new
information in the secret letter send to the Governor, and based
on the new evidence used in the alleged 2013 confidential report
regarding Cynthia Topper's old declarations, considering Petitioner
parole grant was approved by Sacramento on July 30, 2012.
Fn. 47In 1983 Rodriguez was still the appropriate sentencing
scneme followeci oy U1e st.ate court ano BPT officials. See People
v. Scott(1983) 150 Cal.Ap~ .. 3d 910, 919 (holding that In re
Rodri uez "<:al .197 5 14 Cal.. 3d 639 <is still good law to strictly
be followed in California. Id.. The Governor never reviewed the
_:!uly 30, 2012 order affirming Petitioner's maximum primary term
of 20 years.. The maximum !:!.!.!!, is set ~ the Board, not the
Gowernor ~ and is set upon the finding of suitability,RJN 312the
not
Gowernor s review of the sameevidence. -
L. This Court should order the Respondents to turnover the secret

letter sent to the Governor by local deputy prosecutor Ray
Armstrong, and should order the Respondents to turnover the 2013
confidential report regarding Cynthia Topper's older declarations;
thereafter, this Court's order should instruct the Respondents
to provide Petitioner with the required rescission hearing as
set forth in In re Caswell (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1026 (citing
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §2450 et seq.); because t~Governor
accepted restricted "Court Ordered" deleted juvenile records not
part of the evidence presented !.I. the September 14 2 2011 Board
Commissioners ~ the Governor. This order is supported by the
evidentiary restrictions placed on the Governor under Cal. Const.,
art. V, §8, subd. (b) and In re Prewitt, supra, 8 CaL3d at pp.
473-474 ( "Although the proceedings of which petitioner complains
were not for revocation of parole but for rescission of an
unexecuted grant of parole, we can preceive no significant
distinction between the deprivation of the right to conditional
liberty enjoyed by a parolee after release and the deprivation
of the right to achieve such liberty after ~ grant thereof but
before the date fixed for release.") (Ibid., emphasis added,
Prewitt, at pp. 473-474.)Yn:':,/
3. This Court should order the superior court to strictly follow

the Fourth District Appellate Court Case of In Re Gomez (2010)
190 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1305, which reads: ("The Governor's decision
to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Board rests
on the .!.!.!.!. factors that guide the Board's decision (Cal.Const.,
art. V, ~ 8, subdiv-ision ( b)), and is based on "materials provided
.!I. the parole authority. (Pen .. Code §3041.2, subd. (a).") (Ibid.,
emphasis added.); and In re Ryner (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 533, 552
fn. 5 ( "In contrast to the Board, which has an obligation and
ability to take evidence, consistent with due process protections,
the Governor cannot create an evidentiary record.") (Ibid.,
emphasis added.); accord In re McDonald (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
1008, ~ ; In re Twinn (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 447, 472-473.
Therefore, this Court order's the Governor 2012 report containing
Petitioner's stricken juvenile record expunged from Ivan Staich's
C-file parole records under CDC&R No. E-10079.
4. Petitioner requests this Court enforce his maximum primary

terru set under Rodriguez, supra, 14 Cal.3d 639, and as provided
in the Butler settlement as stated in In re Butler, supra, 236
Cal.App.4th at p. 1241 fn.12.
5. This Court grant whatever relief is available under the

circumstances presented in this mandate/prohibition petition,
requiring peremptory writ to issue.
Fn. 57 Ihe Governor never reviewed the July 30, 2012 order from
the Top Officials at the "Decision Review Unit" in Sacraaento,
and therefore, has not reviewed all the ev-idence, which is
aandatory. See In re Stoneroad(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 596, 638
("Governor MUST consider the whole record.") (Ibid., ephasis added,
quoting In r'eshaputis (Cal. 2011) 53 Cal. 4th 192, 214 fn. !.! ( "It
is axiomatic that appellate review for sufficiency of the extends
to the entire record."); see McDonald, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th
ligrft o! 0 l~e ~~lts~~cg!d l)~~~'i~t thdeanifoelr0 d05a°re 8t5he weaVER~'b\~RJN
l,~~1'&313
1 d .~
Dateo tnis of March, 2016, in the city of San Luis Obispo,

State of California. Fn.b/
Petitioner In Propria Persona
VERIFICATION BY IVAN VON STAICH
I, Ivan Von Staich, hereby state and declares under penalty

of perjury that I have read this entire mandate/prohibition
petition and do believe that all the grounds for relief are
genuine, true and correct, and presented under the laws of the
State of California, as set forth in Penal Code §118 and Civil
Code of Procedure, §2015.5.
This legal document was execute a on this~~V~ay of March, 2016,

in the city of San Luis Obispo, State of California.

Fn.. b/ In addition, to the requesting of "confidential report"
issued in 2013 as new evidence to override Petitioner• s maximum
i,>Ciwary term of 20 years.. Petitioner and his private BPH counsel
requested the 2013 Commissioner Ferguson to turnover or allow
counsel t.o review the secret 2013 confidential report, which is
based solely on Cynthia Topper• s older declarations, Petitioner
also requested the confidential information under the "California
Public Records Act" acronym "CPRA" under Government Code §6258;
see Galbiso v.. Orosi Public Utilit~ Dist. ( 2008) 16 7 Cal. App .. 4th
10&3, 1084, however, see Exhibit 11 E I for proof of written request
under Government Code §6258 to be provided a copy of the 2013
new evidence confidential report, which was refused because the
BPH Officials in Sacramento have completely repealed ALL BPH
administrative appeals requesting Government Code §6258 alleged
confidental information. See Exhibit "J'' for reference to proof
the BPH Officials have completely repealed all appeal/grievances
submitted bY, ISL prisoners against the Board Commi;;sioners. See
Jocobson v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1208 ~C.D.Cal.2004)
( "The BP1 has repealed its regulations governing administrative
appealse") (Ibid.): see Bollenger v. Doctors Medical Center (1990)
2 'J. 'J. Ca L App • 3 d 1115 , 112 6 ("a dm in is tr at iv e remedies does not apply
where an administrative remedy is unavailable.") (Ibid., emphasis
added.) Petitioner and private 2013 BPH hearing counsel had no
other remedy with the exception of requesting 2013 Commissioner
Ferguson to turnover the Cynthia Topper 2013 confidential report,
which Commissioner Fergu~on i:efused to do. Pe~itioi:ier is entitled
to review the infor111at1.on 1.n the 2013 conf 1.dent1.al report used
as the sole nexus of evidence to deny Petitioner• s release on
bis maximum primary term set at 20 years, and to. be provi~ed the
proper rescission of parol~ gran.t, b~sed on thl,.\ nerRJN 314
h e~ifen~e-)
and the newly introduced str1.cKen Juvenile records~ ee x i 1 •
I .
,.,,1
· Exhibit A
Exlubit A
RJN 315
1 FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
2 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
3 MAR 02 2017
4 DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court
5 BY· M, BAJ:.iN--.
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
9
In re IVAN VON STAICH, ) Orange County Superior Court
10 ) Case Number: M-16867
Petitioner ) (C-53851)
11 )
)
12 ) ORDER DENYING
ON MANDATE/HABEAS CORPUS ) MANDATBHABEASCORPUS
13
14 TO THE OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE OFFICE OF THE

ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND PETITIONER:
15
HAVING REVIEWED THE ABOVE CAPTIONED VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
16 MANDATE/HABEAS CORPUS AND EXHIBITS SUBMITIED IN SUPPORT THEREOF AS
WELL AS PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, THE COURT
17 ISSUES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
18 On December 3, 1985, a jury found petitioner guilty of second degree murder [Pen.
19 Code, § 187(a)] carried out through the personal use of a firearm [Pen. Code, §
20
12022.5(a)] and attempted murder [Pen. Code, § 664/§ 187(a)] committed through the
21
personal infliction of great bodily injury [Pen. Code, § 12022. 7(a)]. In 1983, petitioner killed
22
his former girlfriend's new husband and attacked the former girlfriend leaving her severely
23
24 injured. On May 30, 1986, petitioner was further found to have served a prior prison term
25 [Pen. Code, § 667.5(b)]. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of 15 years in

26
prison plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison with the
27
possibility of parole. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
28
RJN 316
1 On September 14, 2011, the California Board of Parole Hearings found petitioner
2
suitable for release on parole following a subsequent parole consideration hearing. The
3
Board set petitioner's maximum base term for the murder at 20 years. On February 1O,
4
2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown reversed the Board of Parole Hearings' grant of parole.
5
On March 15, 2013, the Board of Parole Hearings found petitioner unsuitable for
6
7 release on parole following a subsequent parole consideration hearing. Petitioner's next
8 parole consideration hearing was deferred for five years until 2018.
9
By way of mandate/habeas corpus, petitioner, in pro per, moves for declaratory and
10
injunctive relief against the named respondents 1 essentially claiming that:
11
1. Governor Brown erred by a) reversing the Board of Parole Hearings' 2011 grant of
12
13 parole based on improperly obtained confidential information from petitioner's
14 juvenile record that was ordered stricken by the trial court at sentencing and b) not
15 affording petitioner a proper rescission hearing.

16
2. Petitioner is entitled to release on parole following Governor Brown's failure to
17
review a second grant of parole issued by the Board of Parole Hearings on July 30,
18
2012.
19
20 3. The Board of Parole Hearings has failed to set a primary base term for petitioner's
21 commitment offenses under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into
22 between the Board and life inmates in In re Butler.

23
4. Petitioner's continued imprisonment has become excessive and disproportionate to
24
petitioner's individual culpability for the commitment offenses in violation of
25
constitutional proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment.
26
27
1 The named respondents are Warden Josie Gastelo, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Orange County
28 Deputy District Attorneys Ray Armstrong and Stephen Sauer and Board of Parole Hearings Commissioner
Jeffrey Ferguson.
2
RJN 317
1 5. Governor Brown violated Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6(f) by considering new
2 information not before the Board of Parole Hearings in 2011 and rendering a
3
decision on February 10, 2012 reversing the Board's grant of parole based on that
4
information without notifying petitioner of such actions via cover letter as required
5
under the statute.
6
7 6. Deputy District Attorney Ray Armstrong violated Code of Civil Procedure§ 1094.6(f)
8 by supplying both the Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Brown with
9
information from petitioner's confidential juvenile record and the surviving victim's
10
declarations without notifying petitioner of such actions via cover letter as required
11
under the statute.
12
13 7. The Board of Parole Hearings refused to disclose or afford access to petitioner or
14 his counsel to the confidential investigative report generated and relied upon by the
15 Board to find petitioner unsuitable for release on parole in 2013.

16
8. The Office of the Orange County District Attorney has not acknowledged or
17
responded to petitioner's request under the California Public Records Act for a copy
18
of the confidential investigative report generated by the Board of Parole Hearings,
19
20 copies of the surviving victim's declarations, and correspondence sent by the
21 agency to Governor Brown.
22 9. The Board of Parole Hearings has not complied with the California Public Records
23
Act by providing petitioner with a copy of the confidential investigative report
24
generated in 2013 and relied upon by the Board to find petitioner unsuitable for
25
release on parole.
26
27 10. Deputy District Attorney Ray Armstrong disregarded and violated the law by
28 improperly providing Governor Brown with unverified correspondence containing
RJN 318
1 information from petitioner's confidential juvenile record which interfered with petitioner's
2 right to a) have Governor Brown review the issue of petitioner's parole suitability based
3
solely on information included in the record before the Board of Parole Hearings in 2011
4
and b) have the Board set base terms for petitioner's commitment offenses.
5
A habeas "petitioner bears a heavy burden initially to plead sufficient grounds for
6
7 relief, and then later to prove them." (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 332.)
8 The petition is denied on the following separate and independent grounds:

9
The petition, with respect to petitioner's first, second, fourth and seventh claims of
10
error, is denied on grounds the court has previously considered and denied the substance
11
of such claims via habeas corpus (Orange County Superior Court case numbers:
12
13 M-14142, M-14948, M-15715, M-16557). 2 No material change in the law or the facts is
14 identified warranting reconsideration of these issues. Absent a change in the applicable
15 law or the facts, a court will not consider repeated petitions for habeas corpus presenting
16
claims previously rejected. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767; In re Terry (1971) 4
17
Cal.3d 911, 921.) "A prisoner whose petition for writ of habeas corpus has been denied by
18
the superior court can obtain review of his claims only by the filing of a new petition in the
19
20 Court of Appeal." (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 767, fn. 7.)
21 The petition, with respect to petitioner's third claim of error, is denied on grounds
22 petitioner has an adequate remedy at law in the form of a petition to advance the date of
23
his next parole consideration hearing that may be made pursuant to Penal Code §
24
3041.S(d) on the grounds advanced by petitioner in this petition. Habeas corpus is an
25
extraordinary remedy which is unavailable where a petitioner has an adequate remedy at
26
27 law. (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 764, fn. 3.)
28
RJN 319
1 The petition, with respect to petitioner's fifth and sixth claims of error, does not set
2 forth meritorious grounds warranting the requested relief. The purported mere forwarding
3
of information by Deputy District Attorney Armstrong to both the Board of Parole Hearings
4
and Governor Brown does not constitute a formal decision by a local agency subject to
5
6
judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure§ 1094.6. (Code of Civ. Proc.,§ 1094.6(e).)
7 Governor Brown's exercise of his constitutional and statutory authority (Cal.Const., Art. V, §
8 8(b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2) to review and reverse a 2011 grant of parole issued by the
9
Board of Parole Hearings also does not constitute a decision by a local agency that is
10
subject to review under Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6. (Code of Civ. Proc., §
11
1094.6(a)(e).)
12
13 The petition, as presented and with respect to petitioner's eight claim of error, is
14 denied on grounds petitioner does not establish entitlement to judicial review of the
15 purported denial of access to records by the Office of the Orange County District Attorney
16
pursuant to Government Code § 6258. The petition lacks proof of service on the Office of
17
the Orange County District Attorney. (See, Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088.) Furthermore,
18
petitioner allegedly requested records from the District Attorney's Office in late 2012 yet
19
20 does not adequately explain and justify why he has waited nearly four years to seek judicial
21 relief from the claimed improper denial of access to public records by the Office of the
22 Orange County District Attorney. Where there is otherwise no statutory authority or time
23
limit in filing a writ, it must be usually filed within 60 days. (See, People v. Superior Court
24
(Brent) (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 675, 682.)
25
The petition, with respect to petitioner's ninth claim of error, is denied on grounds
26
27 petitioner does not establish that he is without an adequate remedy at law. There is no
28
2 The Court takes judicial notice of its own records pursuant to Evidence Code§ 452(d).
5
RJN 320
1 indication petitioner has formally sought to secure the requested records from the Board of
2 Parole Hearings, or for that matter from the Governor's Office, in the manner prescribed by
3
statute (Gov. Code, § 6253) and has exhausted such efforts. As such, petitioner has not
4
established that the identified issue is ripe for judicial review.
5
Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy unavailable where a petitioner has an
6
7 adequate remedy at law. (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at 764, fn. 3.) "The judicial remedy
8 set forth in the CPRA is available only to a person or entity who is seeking disclosure of
9
public records and only where the public entity is allegedly improperly withholding those
10
records." (County of Santa Clara v. SuperiorCourt(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 119, 127.)
11
·The petition, as it pertains to petitioner's remaining tenth claim of error, is
12
13 likewise without merit and denied on this basis. To the extent petitioner complains that
14 Deputy District Attorney Armstrong's alleged actions improperly interfered with
15 Governor Brown's assessment of petitioner's suitability for release on parole in 2012

16
when the Governor reversed a 2011 grant of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings,
17
petitioner does not demonstrate that such actions were prejudicial in view of the fact
18
petitioner's legal challenge to Governor Brown's 2012 decision has been previously
19
20 considered and denied by the court via habeas corpus. Similarly, petitioner does not
21 establish how Deputy District Attorney Armstrong's alleged actions have prejudicially
22 precluded the Board from setting a base term for petitioner's commitment offenses. In
23
2011, the Board set the maximum base term for petitioner's offenses at 20 years. To
24
the extent such base term may need to be recalculated in light of Governor Brown's
25
2012 decision reversing the Board's grant of parole, petitioner does not establish that
26
27 the Board is somehow precluded from setting a base term for petitioner's commitment
28 offenses under the terms of In re Butler on account of Deputy District Attorney

6
RJN 321
1 Armstrong's alleged actions.
2 To the extent petitioner implies Deputy District Attorney Armstrong should be
3
charged with a crime that has caused injury to petitioner entitling him to some form of
4
compensation for damages caused, such contentions are not the proper subject of review
5
by way of proceedings in the nature of mandate or habeas corpus. "Prosecuting
6
7 authorities, exercising executive functions, ordinarily have the sole discretion to determine
8 whom to charge with public offenses and what charges to bring." (Manduley v. Superior
9
Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 552.) "Habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available
10
remedy for damages claims, which can instead be pursued by a prisoner by means of a
11
civil action." (Cox v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.4th 855, 859.)
12
13 The petition for writ of mandate/habeas corpus does not state a prima facie case
14 warranting the desired relief. (See, People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 737.)
15 The petition for writ of mandate/habeas corpus and motion for appointment of
16
counsel are DENIED.
17
18
19 Dated: ¥1J2
I
20
21
22
I hereby certify the foregoing instrument consisting of J_ page{s)
is a true and correct copy of the original on file in this court.
23
24 ATTEST: (DATE) MAR 1 0 2D17

DAVID H. YAMASAKI, EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CLERK OF THE
SU tOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
25
26
27
28
RJN 322
q' I
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
RJN 323
IN THE COURT or APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE COURT OF APPEAL-4TH DIST DIV 3

FILED
IV AN VON ST AICH,
JUN 2 2 2016
Petitioner,
Deputy Clerk
V. G053067
THE SUPERlOR COURT OF LOS (Super. Ct. No. BS141341)

ANGELES COUNTY,
ORDER
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

r A T ff() R NT A .
Real Party In Interest.
THE COURT:*
Petitioner's petition for a \Hit of mandate is DENIED without prejudice to first
filing the petition in the Orange County Superior Court.
Petitioner's motion to enforce the California Rules of Court is DENIED.
O'Leary, P.J.
O'LEARY, P.J.
* Before O'Leary, P. J ., Fybel, J., and Ikola, J.
RJN 324
EXHIBIT
C .
RJN 325
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

DECISION PROCESSING AND SCHEDULING UNIT
PO Box 4J36
Sa-:rarner,t2, c;.. 95,:, 12-4J3c
Ju!y 30, 2012
Ivan Stai ch CDC # E-10079

California Men's Colony
Highvvay 1
San Luis Obispo, Ci~ 93409
Dear lnn-nte Staich.
Your parole consideration hearing \.Vas conducted on September 14, 2011.

Decision Review is completed and the final decision date of your hearing
is January 12, 2012. The decision has been approved by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Board of Parole Hearings.
,.;t:a:hed is the last "Decision Pa;ie" \Nith the stamped fina! date and a
front co'1er shee~ to your transcript. Pleas2 in:orporat2 these pa;1es in
your cor=iy' of the hearing trans:ript.
Sincerely,
Nadine Jordan for:

Sylvia Labare
Staff Services t,J1a:1ager I
Decision Processing & Scheduling Unit
Enclosure
cc: Institution Records Office
gc
RJN 326
SUESEQUE~T FA~OLE CONSIDEEA~IOK HEARIN~
STATE OF CALIFO~KIA
BOARD OF PAROLE EEARINGS
In the matter of the Life CDC Nurr,ber: E-10079

Term Farole Consideration
' ~
Ee2~::::-ir..g o.r:
I 1.· A:t-; S T ;._ I CE
.S~-t~ LUIS 03IS?O, CL.LIFOE:tn;_
SE?~EM2EE 1
-
~
- I 2011
l l : 2 7 ;._ . t,~ .
PAl~EL PF..ESEWT:
GILEEP.T EOBLES, Presiding Corr.missioner

P.. KEVOR~IAN, Deputy Commissioner
OTEEP.S PRES E:t"i'T:
IVAN STAICH, Inmate

1 r,i I Cr-LL_£ L E .E: C YJ.IJ'.._N , J-_ t to:::::- n e y
for Inmate
RAY ARMSTRONG, Deputy District Attorney
COREECTIONS TO THE DECISIO:tJ HAVE BEEN MADE
No See E€view of Hearing

-----
Yes Transcript Memorandum
-----
R. E. vlillians, Transcriber, Capitol Electronic P.eportin
RJN 327
11-+
in~ates would lcve to be getting a date, and thev would
" I 1 o\·e to see you stay in here. _Z:.,.nd you proba;:ly
~ understan~ ~hat I'm saying.
INMATE STAICH: Yes, Sir.
5 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: And then I think
6 you're correct in the file, I did find US Marshals has a
7 hold, we don't kno~, we'll have to lo:::>k at.
we wish vou well. is 3:27.
9 A D J O U R N M E N T
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 PAROLE GRANTED
22 THIS DECISION WILL BE FINAL ON:
YOU WILL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED IF,
24 DATE, THE DECISION IS MODIFIED
25 IVAN STAICH E-10079 DECISION PAGE 10 9/14/11
RJN 328
Copilol Electronic Rennrtinu
105
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS
,...., D E C I S I O N
_)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KEVORKIAK: We 1
re back or:
4 record.
) ?RESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Okay. We're back
6 or: record. The ti~e is 3:05. All parties that ~ere
-,
I
previo~sly i~ at~e~dance have returne~. M::::-. Leach, the
S Pa~el reviewed all i~for~atioc received fron the
9 public
lO ATTORNEY BECKMAN: St.aich. You said Leach.
11 p P. E S I D ING CO 1-:-X I S S I ONE F. RO 3 LE S ~ I 1

!7't sor:-y.
~=- Staie~, the Pa~el has reviewed all information
13 =e=e~ved ~ro~ the public and all releva~t infor~atio~
1~ chat was before cs today in concludi~s that you are
15 suitable fer parole supervision and you would ~ot pose
16 an unreaso~able risk upon your release or a threat to
17 public safety if released frorr. prisor:. The findinss of
18 the suitability ~as based o~ weighing the considerations
19 p~o-,/ided iE C2.lifo:!'.."'ni2. Code Sec~ion Title lS. In
20 granting you parole, we considered the nature and
21 gravit.y of your commitment offense. It was particula~ly
J7 bothering in that the manner in which ~as carried out
23 was of concern \A:ith the Panel in that you went to a
24 hoDe, did cut the wires fro~ the home, when confrocted
:s rv1..i; ST].ICE E-10079 DECISION PAGE 1 RJN 329

9/14/11
106
t:ith the victir:1 w.tile yot: ;,s:ere in the home,

1 the life
'"l cffer:se occt.:rred. ~any other people could have been
J harmed in that fashic~ and speaking of the other victi~,
4 Mrs. Topper.
ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'~ sorry, Co~missioner.
We were asked to fi~d t~o
certificates a~a we're crv~n~ to fitd there.
8 P P. :S S I D I NG CO ?--!.:.'1 I S S I ONER ROE LE S : Okay.
9 DEPUTY COMM:SSIONER KEVORKIAN: If ·yot.: can't,
11 ATTORNEY EECKMAN: Okay.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: J..lso, i t was
13 noted ~he p=io~ c~icinal, yoer prior crimi~ality i~ that
14 tice fer a Federal charge.
l5 ;._:1::. i:.' s also noted that yo~ Kill b2, that there 1.s 2.
16 hol~ o~ you fro~ the Federal Government so you will more
17 thar. likely be ~eceived by t.her:,. We did note that yo~
1S :-!aj sorr.e llSs bacr: in 1993, '96, '93, '99, three of
19 those being administrative. ~nd we did ~otice 128s,
20 nine of therr., the last beins in 2008. The psych report,
21 the current psych report we received the State did, it
22 was 2.. conce:::-n for us in that i': did rate you 1-~igh in the
:3 overall assessment, high in the LC/CMI (sic) which is a
24 static instrument. Eut the Board felt that thosE were
25 I VAN ST .A IC H E-10079 DECISION PAGE 2 9/14/11

RJN 330
107
.., acauir:.~~ s~atic data. We felt t~a: ycu have built ~p

. _,
the necessary resources, necessary insight :.nto the
..! cac.s2.:.. factc.:-s of yot.:.r crime. T~a~ 1 s all leading to the
5 direc':ion of suitab~l~ty. S::,, en balEu-:ce, considering
6 t~a': and c2~sidering your, tha= yo~ were at the time of
1 =~e co~~itree~t offe~se ~nvclvei ic a dys~unctional
9 it, that beiLS ~~ta positive relatio~ship a~d having
10 ir.sisht in':o t:-at .:act, tt=-.t this Boarc. d.::ies car.sider
11 ~e were liste~icg tc you l~ te~~s of th~ remorse
12 'yo"...: :el': believe tr_at that is true.
13 b 2 2.ieve tr.:::.': you do· b.ave ren::rss fr,-y yo'...:.r actia:-is a:1d
ll ~~de~sta~d yc~r accio~s an~ will take the necessary
15 steps so i: w:.11 never occt.:.r asair... We already sp.oke
16 ab o 'J. t t i-_ e i n s :. :. t u t i o n a 1 b eh av i o r . Yo~ have taken many
1 _,
I /
self-r.. elp classes, wl-..icr_ is positive for you, especi2.lly
18 i~ l~ght of yo~r parole pla~s, ~hich is a positive step
19 in that yot.:.. 1 re gains to a st:.ructured, a semi-st:::-uctured
20 e~vironment because you will need assiscance. You will
21 r..eed :1elp. So, that will be, that will be investigated
2.2 b::,· ou:- investiqation team to see if ::hat's a viable
~oca:ic~ fo~ yot.:..
-, ,1
.:..""T
~hie~ one are you r~co~rrendin3?
25 IV AN ST J.~ IC H E-10079 DECISION PAGE 3 RJN 331

9/14/11
!OS
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Th2 ;,:--ima..ry or:e.
INMATE STAICE: Okay.
3 PRESIDING COM~ISSIONER ROBLES: We did hear the
4 :-espo:::ses i~ opposi~io~ f:-o~ the Distric~ At~o~ney's
5 Of:. ice, wr..ich .i.s noted. At this ti~e, Deputy
6 d :J have any co~~ents about the
aecis.::...or.. (
..,. I I ......
s DEPVTY COM~:SS!ONER KEVOR~IAN:
9 J._ cove~e::. the 3042 n:it.ices, the Santa A.na ?olice
10 Dep::.~t.tT;e:'.t alsc c.ic: 2. lette:-- of oppos::.tio:::. It T,\;asr.'t
11
l ...
To begir.
l3 v: i t. ~- , y c ·..:. v e c ::, :': e 9 o o d .

1
You've only ~ad fo~:-- 1:ss si~ce
1~ yo:..:. 1 \te bee:-. in::2.:-ceratedr none o: therr. have b-2en for
t5 violeace o~ ar.·::- d~u::s. ~~at's ve~y go~d. You've workec.
16 hard. You did a lo~ cf classes. One of the tiings I
:7 ~an~ to conrne~d yo~ on, yo~ co~d~c~ed yourself ~~ here
l8 very good, you wereri' t arsuing, yot.:.. weren I t.
19 ir_ter~upting. And I think earlie~ you said one of ~he
20 p::-obler.,s you had wher. you were ·younger is, ! :.b.i.n}: the
21 exact wo::-ds you said, you bad c. big IT.ou4:.h. 3'L..t you did
22 good. You didn't argue with people. ':'l:a':. was real
·23 good. And I ~ant ~o co~rnend you for that. You
24 , conducted you~ self good . The~e ~as a time when you
25 IV hl1 ST Ji.. IC H E-10079 DECISION PJ._GE 4 RJN 332

9/14/11
109
ta~ked the EOt.
-: ~ ::. c k i t ~p but you b e c am e "\' e r y e m 2 t i c ::1 a 1 . And I thir..k :
J offe~ed you a ~apkin to help yo~. You ve taken a

1
lot of
.:! classes. A~d these classes have benef~ted you. You've
'"' taken a 2-ot o:. ang-er rr.a:1ager.1ent classes. You r.a. Ve 2.
6 'ce:!:"'tificat.e tr:ar. yoc gc,:: fro::-. the Stanford Career
'; : Ins:. it 1..: +:.e: :=t is c:::-u:; anc. alc:)hol co·.inseling It f

2 C.
s diplo:-r.a Yoe. C 2-r-

,.; c\
I.....__, a lot o: t!'_ing.s y.,' it t t!"'1i S It I
s
9 awardec. co you o:-: Janc.ary th:= 22nd, 2C10. Yo·...:. also have
10 a diplo~a f~o~ the Ela:ksto:1e Caree~ I:1stitute, and ttis
l1 A~~ this is ~ated
12 \'ery so:.::id, that ~ill benefit you.
'...,
l.) Yo~'ve take~ classes th~ouc~ Coastline Co~~unity
1~ co l l e s e , Y o }: e : e 11 o \•: P ~ o 9" r a r:, • It :-eally ~,.a.sr-~' t
15 ~ecocme~ded that you take hA o:- NA but it ~as one o~ the
16 cruestio~s that yo~ were asked and you not only talked
17 ab::n:.t i t but you k.nev: the steps, so that 1

s sood. People:
18 5 ay , '".r e J.. l , I 9o t o m e e t i n s- s , b 1..:. t }: no v: i r. g ~ he s -.: e p s and
19 living the steps is ~ifferent than just attending the
10 rr, e e t i ng s . so, you did real good t~eYe. Let's see.
21 some of the, maybe the conce~ns that I personally had
n regarding your psychological evalu2..tion, I asked yo·..1
'"'"
..:.J ~uestions abou~ tha~. A~d not cnly were yo~ able to
24 ar.swer ny questio:is, =: coul.c. tell that. VO'J had i:1si~r.t
'"l~ IVAN ST.AICH E-10079 DECISION PAGE 5 RJN 333

9/14/11
110
it. You of
""\ :-. a d a. p ~ an, I s h o u l d l"'. av e d i d A , :S an c:. c , I sh o '..: l c. h a\· e

_,.., dor:e tl:is . And you took full respo:-:..sibility, yo~ did
4 not bla:r.e the vic':ir.. at all. A~d with that, I ~ish yo~
5 we 11 .
6 IN~.~..':' E S TA I C H : T~ank yo~, b~~h of you guys.
?RES!DIEG COMX!SSIONEE ROBLES: sra~tin3 you~
8 rarole, in calcula.ti.n~ the dates, w-2 wer.:: accordi:19 tc
9 +-ho
Ii...-•- - r..atrix r.:urder,
10 subsecr:.:..o:-:.. C excuse n e ,
I\
l l
,,:-ictir:~, subse:::io:: C,
, "I 24C r..o::-1t.hs. r.• -

'{'t '= 2.d.dec.. tr-.e l2
1..:.
r..OE t!'"'.S.
'
t1.r..e ere d'it fro~ 2/21/69 unt~l
16
17 is 76 conths. That 1 s ~inus the years that you ~eceived
]8 the 115S.
19 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Seventy-six non::hs, yot.:. said.?
20 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Yes.
21 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissi.oner
22 PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES:
23 3 3 2 months.
ATTORNEY BECKMAN: think you c2n o~ly add eight
IVAN STAICH E-10079 DECISION PAGE 6 RJN 334

9/14:/11
111
years fo~ acother life crime.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Le~ rn e l c ·::) }: i r: ~ o
3 t ha t: . v; e 11 a c t. u a l l y , t b.. i s w i 11 go f or a De c i s i o r: P. e v i e \I: .
4 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, but it would be much
) easier if you did i t now because they' 11 - -
0
PRESIDING COM~ISSIONER ROBLES: Well, it \\ i l l
1
st.ill so tr:ere. It s t i l l ~as to 90 throush ther..
s ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.
9 P P_ E S ID ING CO M1': I S S I ONE'.:{ ROBLES :
1O l 2 a\" e t :i. i s as i s and a 11 or""· t b. e Dec is i o :s. P. e vi E: 1.;.· to
11 ccr:.fi:r-r:. :.he c2.lcul2.tior:s.
1 ';
t.:..
ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.
13 PP.ES ID!HG COE~I S SI ONER ROBLES: J:.._s this c.ecisio!""~
14 i s no t f i n e.. l , i t ' s re c o r.-i. m ended t ha t do :-1 1 t b ~e a}: a n y
15 n .:, ye , t t. a t you d or: ' t:. b re a}: any r u l e s a c c o rd i n g t o t :r. e
16 califo~nia Code of Regulations, Title l5, Sectiot 2451,
17 2.s yo1...1Y rele2.se date rr.ay change or be taker.. away. You
18 will have 2. special co~ditiori of parole of release of no
19 co~tact with Cynthia Sue Trooper imposed by the Bo2.rt.
20 J.nd once again, this c.ecision is not final. The
21 decision will become final after 120 days. It is
') ')
reviewed by the Decision Eeview Unit and i t is also
23 rev i e v.r e d by the Govern o Y ' s Of f i c e who c an a c t to mod i f y 1
24 rescind, or ao 1n :ront of 2. full Eoard for
25 IVAN STAICE E-10079 DECISION PAGE 7 RJN 335

9/14/11
112
I
1 1
recor.siderat:.ior:. E~t you ~ill be r..otified i~ there is
a~y changes of the decisio:1.
) AT~O~NEY BECKMAN: Commissio::er, befo=e you -- I
4 r:1ean, I r.eed to poir. . t out something, that he alre2..::.y
) served tr.e time for the other offense.
6 PRESID:NG COMXISSIONER ROBLES: Na r...,· I ....~ as t hi s a
consec~tive or --
s ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, it i,.;:::ic-: co:1secu::.ive. Ee
9 se::::-ved, he ca.l':'t2 to prisor.. ir. '89, and cou:r-i.ting Cou::ty
10, Jail h2 die.. five yea.rs ir.. Coun:.y Jail.
ll the 13 ad~icional before he got here. that's all 0 :'1
So, yo~ car..'t ever.. add any ti~e for
13 that. so, ca~ we take - brief recess and you ca~
1.:. !. cor;.t2.cc legal?
I -
J.)
PRESIDING COKMISSIONER ROBLES: Oka~-·, but
16 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Please.
17 I
I:t;MATE STAI CH: Can I just say one thing?
l8 A'I'TOP.NEY B EC KM/.~N: No, no, r.o, no.
19 I NMA '11 E ST;._ ICE : Okay.
20 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Because this is goins to
21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KEVORKIAN: We're going to
22 take a recess. You guys, we'll call you back. And let
23 us rr,ak.e a phone call.
24 (Off the reco!:"d.)
E-10079 DECISION PAGE 8 9/14/11

'l -
.;..) IV P..N ST A I C n RJN 336
113
DEPCTY CO~M:SSIONER KEVORK!AN: We're back
,., 0:1. record.
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: Ok2..v. V\ e I

r e b a c :i.:
-4 o::-:. tr:e rec:)rd. In calculat.ing the =.:.me, we did a
5 co~fi~~at~o~ o~ the tentative calculations of the pa=ole
6 d3.~e. S0 1
t:.h::- b2.se tir.:2 is 2;0 nor:t:1.s, there :..s r..8 tir.:2
7 ' f c :- u s e o :: v~ -::: a p ~ r. as .:. t :. s a c o n c u r r e ~.:. t , e x c tl s e r.. e , i. t
s i s 2. c o ~- s e :: L:. t. i v = s e r;. t e n c e r 2. s we 1 :.. a s t. r~ e d e t e r :-r. : n a ::. E:
9 senter.ce
10 ATTORNEY BECKMAN:
l1 PRESIDING COMM!SSIONEE ~OBLES: 13 ye2.rs, t.r.at
1
l.;..
'1 is
13 ATTO£NEY B~CK~AN: T~ey were serve=.
PRESIDING co~~ISSIONER ROBLES: So the tC)tal is
15 24=0 no:-iths, crec.it fo~ tir..e served, 76 r.,onths, with 2.
16 tot.al of 154 r.iontr.s.
17 ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Co~~issioner.
1S PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ROBLES: So, those are the
19 cor:::-ec:.ions.
20 Z...TTOP.NEY BECK}~Jl..N: Tt.ank yen.:..
21 PRESIDING COM~ISSIONER ROBLES: O}:a y. The
n \hearing ~s over unless we ~ave anychi~g else to add?
DEPUTY COKMISSIONER KEVORKIAN: The only th:..nc I
24 wo u : d 2. s ~: i s don ' t s. h a r E: ': hi s v: i ::. h no o n e .
25 IVJ..N STJ..IC:i E-10079 DECISION PAGE 9

RJN 337
9/14/11
.... - ....... - -~
-
~
-
:::
-- -- - --- - -·-
...
- - -- -
_,.::::; ......... .:=.
- .
:;, 'i:: .,.. -;;, c::

-··-,---.. .__.
- --
L-------
~ -,- ..:::.. ,....... - r ·- =-
..:;
~ - ..-- - ·,\. I 'I•'=
I ::_ l
- ---- _....
~
:_:i D L.' 0
. 1
l7
20
21
22 THIS DECISION ~ILL F Ili P._L Oti : J2.E~2.ry 12, 2012
'")'1
..:.J
Y O TJ v; I L L BE PP. Ol ·!PT LY NOT I ? I ED I F , .t' .t'. 1.
~ ,1
L J._ '.::.' .=": , '.l' £:: E D ~ C .I.S .I Ol; .I.S E .JD .I .? l ED
RJN 338
T ,-t-= _: " .,. . . ., -

"-- ..!.... - - - ....:.. .:: -
t- ',... - -
-- - ~ --
-- r "'- 1 - = =- ~ ; r- -- =
L ~-.::. ~ . \.-- _.
- -
"Tl::: -
............ - -- .:::::.. "-
- -
__, ___
---7 ,.--,,-·.,-
,_
2 Cl :2.
~
r -- , , .=. c_
- - ._.... - I
tr2.:1.sc:-i:;:itio:-i
F'. E Fil~ i 2.r. .3

2 C: 11
RJN 339
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
RJN 340
MARCH 15, 2013 PAROLE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ATTORNEY'S OBJECTION
TO MOT BEING ALLOW"ED TO RECEIVE Off VIEW CONFIDENTIAL REPORT.
0 vie:2.ates
DEPUTY co~~ISSIONER FASSNACE7:
6 s 2 :--: s :.... t. :. -'-'- e . so r. ~ ·.· e t !: e rr. : . _ c 2. 1.,: 2. y .
I1:~~ATE STl-.. ICE: Cl·:::. •.
DEPUTY COM~ISSIONEE FASSNACET:
9 ab::i:_:t. tr. a1:.

ATTORNEY EEC~~AK:
,
.I.
...,
.J otje:::c co
1 -
.I.:)
16 i~~or~atio~ a~d/cr reda=~ed vers10~ of it. The
17 Cal~~or~ia Supre~e Co~rc :n I2 Fe F~e~itt E-E-E-E-I-T-T,
19 li~~tation ~hen i~forra~t ~ill be exposed to an u~due
2O r i sk o £ ha r r.. , 2. n i n r., a t e s ho u l d b e prov i de d v: i t h a c op y
21 of any confidential docu8ent and should be afforded a
22 reasonable opportunity to respond thereto, either in
person or in w=iting. Nothing less ~ill satisfy
24 sta~dar~s of fundanental fairness required by the due
25 p::-ocE:ss clause It is clear th2t 1n cases cf cer~

RJN 341
l5
~ I
s 2:-:.c 1---, ••
..... -I:.'=.~i t\!
- of a
-j Ti_..::: +- ;::::.
9
I C:
sive::1
ll
11
16 ::-:elied 0:1.
17 e~o~gh infor~atio::1 l~ the co::1~ide::1tial d~cu~ent that can
IS be re~eale~ ~ith8ut jeopardizing security ano safety of
19 the institutioE. To use confidential ir:for~ation that
20 we're not aiven access to as part of a parole decision,
21 violates Nr. Staich's protected liberty interest in
'7 '7 parole, his procedural aTid substantive due process
7'"'
_.) ri~hts guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth h~end~ent
to the United Scates Constitution a~d their Califcrnia
25 co 1_:r:te::-r=,arts, th'::: ccn:ro:-_tc=:_t.ion cla .1se~ cf 1

the Sizt:c
RJN 342
16
6 c= - ...... ::::..
s O~fice
10
21
11 ----.......-
..-. ' - --
;,._. '-"
~
L.
._
.!.-
- -,_
=-
--- -- - v: : -,_,_ i l-_

........ ::::. ,.,..... 1 - _,
1"
LJ ------, C
. -
ir~::c::-rr~2.t:...o:-1.
'
15
16 C:JUlC. S Eo·-;;3
17 v: t.. v u s i : :--. =- c " ..., f 1 c. : : . ~. ... . ; ;:: l i r.:. : o r r:-1 a :. i c r-. , or i r: f o r r.. a ::. i.. o =-i.
1S =-~~t 's bee~ sealed is cocpletely i~proper.
19 u~dersta2d that i~vestigacio~ was con~ucted by the Board
20 a f t. e r t he l; o v e r.. b e r 27t h he a r i n g v: a s o rd e r e d .
21 PRESIDING COMKISSIONER FERGUSON: Let's go back
22 just one r..inute. v72.s th2.t an objection that you're
23 ~aking to ·using inforffiation
24 -ATTOP.J.\TEY BE CKK.AlJ: I'm just trying to
') -
..::..) e~panding o~ ~y objectio~.
RJN 343
1-4 9
CALIFORKIA EOA2D OF PAROLE EEAEIKGS
J D E C I s I
I:EFDTY COl-:l-~ISSIOl;ER FASSKACET: t 2. c: }:
FEESIDING co~~ISSIONER FERGUSON:
6 ::: . r... lS decisio~ ro~tic~ of
10
11 LS
l.:. ...... - C::::.. :=, '.._; -- :::. - ~:::
_-
,_..... ..
14 ~ l~:::
15
16 Eegulations Title 15 an~ t~is is a fiYe-year denial.
17 first c8nside~ation which weig~s ~eavily against
lS S'c.2.itabili:::y :._s 1 1
~ not going to say i t s 1
the
19 heaviest-weighted decision but I 1

m going to refe:::::-ence ; -L
...
20 1,~m 2\
w ~ c o n s i o e r information that
__i_n_:....r._l_2._}_::_i_n_s__o_u_:::::-_ _a_e_c_i_·_s_i_·_o_~_.__t_o_d_a_Y
v_;_e_a-."-:-~-d--c-o_n_s_i_a_~_e_r
is contained within the

____
21
22 confidential portion of the Central File and the
docu~ent that we a~e referring to is the Board of Parole
24 I Eec.Ying' s I71"'Jesti_sat.ion PepoYt l~UI':',ber 2012-1069

l
25 I IVAN STJ..ICE E-10079 DECISIOl; PJ..GE 1
RJN 344
3/15/13 I
L ~- --- -----------------------------
1.5 0
J~-------------------------:
J..
..-.,.-..,r- . . -~~~- ... ::::,
fi! c.==:...:.:-:-.::::--.: --
l
, I.---~.
I'··~~ 1 :=, ta:::'e s2.all
'-------------------------
5 case 2.:-:d
6
.,
I
DECLARATION BY IVAN VO~ STAICH
s I, Ivan Von Staich, do certify and state as follovs:
0 1. The above statement is from Petitioner's March 15,

2013 parole hearing. Com:nissioner' s Ferguson placed this
one end or.ly •nexus• of evidence on the March 15, 2013
10
parole hearing transcripts, there is no other "nexus•
mentioned by the March 15, 2013 Board Co:u:nissioners. In
accordance vith the California Supreme Court decision
of In re La;rrence (Cal.2003) 44 Cal.4th 1181, at p. 1227,
1; the only evidence that can procedurally stop a prisoner
fro~ being found suitable for parole is the •nexus"
evidence shoving current danger. This information is
13
relevant to Petitioner's claim for relief in this third
1 -~
a~ended mandate. Petitioner is requesting relief in
... -r
accordance vith In re Prather (Cal.2010) 50 Cal.4~th 238,
at p. 260, vhere requires any subsequent parole hearing
15 held after a prior parole hearing panel found the
prisoner suitable for release, the subsequent parole hearing
16 panel (the Harch 15, 2013 panel) must adhere to the
eviden tiary findings of the rrevious held parole hearing
vhere the Panel did not consider ,;Confidential Information."
2. The March 15, 2013 Board Com~issioners refused to follov
the mandatory language set forth in In re Prather, at
1S p. 260. The prior September 14, 2011 Board Commissioners
were in possession of Cynthia Topper's old declarations,
19 but did not initiate any investigation. THEREFORE, under
Prather the March 15, 2013 Board Commissioners vere
20 restricted from initiating any investigation into Cynthia
Topper's old declarations, and should have been restricted
from reli tiga ting the Septeaber 14, 2011 Board
21
Commissioners evidentiary findings under Prather at p.
260 and res judicata.
22
J. I have read the foregoing statement and do make this
23 statement under penalty of perjury within the laws of
the State of California.
24 4. This declaration was executed on this7·.J::fty of April,
2014 in the city of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
r __ .)_, , r _/ -~~\,·,
25
RJN 345
- . /1,)// i','.J.- -, -.· f,.},\ l· '
STATE=: o::=- C:,.2:_J?O?._'\":_-\ - D~:=-2:-:.:-:1::-:: o:-Cc:-:-=:1i-:[:.~ D.:: R=::-.::..':-::::..1.:::::-:

Bo:1rd of ParoL HeJrings
Fos: Or:::e BJ,~ ~0.3t
~OTICE Of HEARI\G
DATE: JJr.uJry 9, 2013
TO: ~IICHAEL BEC~\L-\_"\

3435 OCEA.\' P_.\RK Bl VD., #107, P.\rB 4-;7
SA:\.TA ~10.:\JCA CA 90-405
RE: Attorney ReLlined at Parole H2:1ring - I\'A~, STAICH

£100~9
De Jr
T h i ; is y o u r co n firm .Hi c, n tr) rep res en t th e ab o, c: in d i \ ·i c u :1 l as fo Uo" s :

Type of H2:1riri.g: Subs2qurnt Suiubiliry Hearing
D.1t2 I Time: ~brch 15, 2013 10:30 .-\.>I
Insrirutior.: CaliforniJ l\ l~n 's Co lo ny
HIGH\\.AY 1
SA:\ L1'15 OBISPO, CA 93409
Attcrn2y Ret3tncd By: l.\'>1..\ TE
Pl2::i.s~ n13.ke arr:rng2mer1ts to int:::nic\,. your clicr..t and redcH his her fil:: at l::ast 45 dJ.)S prior
t(1 th:: h -2 .1rir1 g. Tc ensu r2 3 rr3 ng em ::nts "'ill b:: r:i:1 d -2 for your die r.t tc., repo n promptly for the
interY12\'>, cor:u2t the Ir.stirution He:1ring Coordin.J.tor no lJrer th1n 4S hours b2fore the
i.r.t2nie".
1
Yoi..: shoulc anti-::ipat2 a represenutiYe from the cist:rict atrnrney s office v,ill parricip1te in th2
hearir-ig: either by sending ::i represer.tatiYe to the institution or Yi:1 Yid::o conference. fo
addtcion, p:1ni,::ip:ition by the ,L:tim of the crime or the victim's ne\t of kin may also occur.,,,·ith
their appearance at the heJ.ring or ,ia Yideo conference.
If you ru-ve any questions regarding this matter, pleJ.se contJ.ct Syhi:1 LaB:ue at (916) 31-4-0SOO.
Sincerely,
/"). l L
\. ,.:;' ~/1 '="7 }="'"
~ '- ~\~ ----:=-
-
{; c_j
Sylvi:1 LaBare
Hearing Support l1nit
cc: C-File, Inmate
RJN 346
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
RJN 347
.-.. Tl 11! r 1,i.ll·'Ji:/•!
Tl· 'J'{)
3/5/13 BPH Commissioners CMC-East Staich, Ivan Von E-10079

lll·:!,1•!1iil'lill'I' \\IIJI,/ ! . .':.';llil'ils•ll'l·l'I , 11)1. 1rni\'ll:l'.I'
11::11,1,,
'1-1-:1)h< ·11,
AQ:1315 A-1-A
, 1 .:;:; ii d·:i"l i·.l·J·: Ill, \JI.::.
·111-.1· 1-.:::;1,;i·/h'll'.i'!'l ::: 1 'Jl(;1Ji. J'!ll'.1:/.,!'\ 1:·1:
'\'(1
, .lui:·i.\ ,i_;:_ilU ytiu;· :(::t:"(JL iur ,·'.·(!tl('.<-;;iw.: U1i:~ :ill~·:· 1 :(,_·\'•.

\t;tt \-viii \)t' '.::ilit-ci 111 J()I i111c1·v1t·v: 111 1\1c· 11c:1: f111u::~· ll 1i1c· 111;1llc:i ::;11111(,I \J'. 11,111(111:i! I, ,:1,:1 1.:,':J1tJ11ci,:11'. t:
I am scheduled for a March· 1 s, ·2013 pc:i'role aiid ___BPff'tommissioner Ferguson stated during 'fiearTni
the November 28~--~2_1~--p~r~_!_~--~~~r~~~-.!:-~~~--~~--~uld J~_rovide _me _wi_th _a co_p_y _of __ GYnthi~~!_o_2Qer' s
Iiive·stigafion report regarding her old declarations. I am requesting this information pursuant
to (CPR.\) Government Code §6258; (IPA) Civil Code ~§1798.25, 1798.24, 1798.34, 1798.45; C.C.~.
--·-§-§·223s-, --- 3321; · Penal--- -Coae --~304r.-5;-·-suba:-·laJ(1T;___ a'r1d-- per - Ochoa V. Superior Court120Tf) 199
Cal.App.4th 1274, 1284 (mandate petition granted.)
Respectfully Submitted, Ivan Von Staich; dated this March, 2013.
DECLARATION BY IVAR VON STAICH

I, Ivan Von Staich, do certify and state as follows:
1. I submitted the above request for interview in order to obtain a copy of
the investigation report ordered by November 28, 2012 Commissioner Ferguson,
however, I was refused this request for the investigation report because there
is no administrative appeals system to ask BPH Commissioners for confidential
information in accordance Code of Regs. tit. 15, §3901. 3.1. Petitioner has
no other adequate remedy in order to obtain the confidential information, with
the exception of this writ of mandate. Writ of mandamus are the exclusive
remedy for obtaining confidential information as set forth within (CPRA)
Government Code §6258 et seq., which exclusively authorizes the filing of a
mandate to enforce the legal right to obtain the confidential information for
his defense during the parole hearing process.
2. I, Ivan Von Staich, have read the foregoing declaration and state under
penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
3. was executed on this!_~~ta';r of April, 2014, in the city

of California. ~~
f ~
Declarant:
RJN 348
£XH1BIIT
F
EXHIBIT
f
RJN 349
Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document
F E55-4
B RFiled 01/19/18 Page 59 of 70
U A R y 2 3, 2 0 I 2 ~ ,·.;; ......
in 1936
murder and atterrmted 4
nr1't.t.- r·rter L·1. ~r:d

- • .+,;_ .._ .
.,;t,··~l,
"""'_.
\ . ' , ......-
~Carr\1·n~
i.,:.- -A
- - 6 'c4
-'. . I,,..;
:30-years-to-U\:- prison 2>:,n-

tt~:1:~t~ \ 1/!:e.r1 he> \\~<.1s f(}t1:~1ci
,_,
pe,role, in Sep-
temher ·after a hem'ing.
I
~1Jaro1.:; boai~rf cifp(t·,1~,n
4, - _,£• _.., · _....,., e L '-- ..6..., "-'_-..,.-4,,. °W'"•-A
Staic.h ·s recea:. good
..'I-~!--:.,!'
- - ..-~ r'.! t._l-l11.~~- h1-.~ rlt1t-::E; n(\f -ptt~SC cf'.'.l·t)
~ ...~_;i),'~ ~_..1_f'-.....---
_~ __ .,,_ __ - - ·------~~ .... ,Ii\..,,,~,"~ ~¥"-a~~
T ''t'~-~·-u~:} ·-
,.,.._..,__1;.._t,...,J,.-·\.,,,--~.
-:t-- 1~ r_:-,,
.'.;,•..i .. ;..;J.v.e
. . _ .,..._~-_..,.t~- _. . ._+.""'. J:l•-,,T"''td"---,:;:-: ~~ s~~-Cl~s~+.~"•
or 1.."'"'"'·i.1.::::•,;;;,.. -1.1..1 .,.v . ",,..::·
.1c .~.."~
:Lr: the Orange Co:.mty Di~tdct Atto:·-
Fi:zgera~d.
Dt::p 1J~~y
on '\Ved:1e,::d:1y.
custod:,: pli·t:d-
Lll,f; i\nnst ro::;
... ·1
:~3l.t.1
RJN 350
EXHIBIT
6
RJN 351
IVAN VON STAICH CDC&R No. E-10079

P.O.Box 8101 (AQ:2148)
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93409-8101
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
* * *
) Case No. BS141341
IVAM VON STAICH, ) SECOND AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE
) MANDAMUS FILED AGAIN~T BOARD OF
Petitioner, ) PRISON HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS
) FOR FAILURE TO TURNOVER ALLEGED
vs. ) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND FAILURE
) TO·ENFORCE PREVIOUSLY SET MAXIMUM
)EFFREY fERGUSON,_ BOARD OF ) TERM; AND FOR GOVERNOR EDMUND BROti'N'~
PRISON HEARINGS COMMISSIONER; ) FAILURE TO STRICTLY FOLLOY THE
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAQUEL ) LANGUAGE SET FORTH YITHIN THE VOTERS
FASSNACHT, GOVERNOR EDMUND BROWN, ) BALLOT PAMPHLET, PROPOSITION 89,
) APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988; THIS
Respondents. ) MANDAMUS IS FILEDUIDEI C.C.P.
) §§1085(a) AND 1094~5 (a); MEMORANDUM
~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~ OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TO~ THE HONOR~BLE,?RESIDING JUDGE OF TH~ ABOVE ENTITLED COURT,
And Respondents Attorney, Please Take Notice:' Department 86,
***INTRODUCTION TO SECOND AM~NDED MANDAMUS***
1. Comes _now, Petitioner Ivan Von Staich, who brings this
''Second Amen de d Mand ate" ·against the Ca 1 if o rn i a Adm in is tr at iv e
Board of Parole Hearings, specifically, Commissioner Jeffrey
Ferguson, and Deputy Commissioner Raquel fassnacht, who ·have
deliberately . failed to turnover "Confi<lential
Information" before the commencement of Petitioner's March
15, 2013 scheduled administrative pai;ole hearing, , and refused
to enforce Petitioner's maximum base term of confinement, after
the Governor Edmund Brown violated the mand.atory language of
Proposition 89, voters initiative, rendered on November 8,
Page-!-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 352
1988, which only allows the Governor to review the same eYidence
as the September 14, 2011 Board Commissioners reviewed, which
was wiihin Petiiioner's parole and prison C-file. The Governor
obtained "Court Ordered" stricken criminal records and used
these false criminal records as a primary basis to stop

1
Petitioner s parole release on the maximum set term. The
language set fol:'th in the Yoters "Ballot Pamphlet" does not
allow the Governor io obfain "Court Ordered" siricken criminal
records and use these false records to stop Petitioner's maximum
release date. See In re Rosenkr&nt~ (Cal.2002) 29 Cal.4th 616,
661.
2. The March 15, 2013 Board Commissioners alleged .. Confidential
Information" was designated as the sole "nexus" of evidence
,linked to the original commitment offenses by Commissioner
Ferguson. The March 15, 2013 transcripts reveal Commissioner
Ferguson s~atement at pp. 149-150, as follows:

("We did consider in. making our decision today we did
consider information that is contained within the confidential
portion of the Central File and the document that we are

ref erring to is the Board of 'Parole Hearing's Investigation
Report Number 2012-1069 and that document is contained within
the inmate's confidential file. A confidential tape shall be
forwarded that references not only the information . that was
considered within that document,

·but
-- also will include the
relevance to this case and the nexus to current dangerousness.")
(Ibid., emphasis added.) (Se~ Exbibii "A" for reference to
Page-I-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 353
relevant portion of March 15, 2013 parole hearing transcripts
which contains the complete "decision portion" of the 163 page
transcripts, where the March 15, 2013 Board Commissioners
presented their most relevant piece of evidence, supposedly
showing this Court· the one and only ~'nexus" of ·confidential
information, supposedly revealing Petitioner is a current danger
to the public.) The reason the nexus information is so
important, it is the key piece of evidence showing why the
California parole e_li_gible prisoners should not be l)aroled,
and the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence ( Cal. 2008)
44 Cal. 4th 1181, at 1227 requires the Board Commissioners to
state on the administrative record, their supportive nexus
evidence linked to the original commitment offense.
3. Petitioner positively maintains his private· counsel placed.
his objection to the use of the confidential information on
the March 15, 2013 administrative record, and his oojection
to the complete failure of the Board Comwissioners to turnoYer
the confidential information before the March 15,_ 2013 he!3.ring
commenced, see March 15, 2013 transcripts, at ~p. 14-16, which
proYides: PRIVATE COUNSEt MICHAE( BECKMAN'S OB)ECTION

("We object io the use of any confidential information
at this hearing because we have not been proTided
with. a summary of the information and/or redacted
version of it. The California Supreme Court in In
re Prewitt P-R-E-if-T-T, that's 8 Cal.3d 470 (1972)
held that subject to limitation when information
will be exposed to an undue risk of harm, an inmate
should be provided with a copy of any confidential
document and should be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to respond thereto, either in person
or writing. Nothing less will satisfy standards of
fundamental faiTness Tequired by the cue process
clause. It is clear that in cases of term fixing
Page-_!-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 354
and parole granting, the ~rivate interest of an inmate

and his liberty outweighs the public interest in
preserving confidentiality. In 2011, the Court of
Appeals in Ochoa O-C-H-0-A versus Superior Court
provided what it believes to be a .procedure that
would satisfy due process and indicated that before
confidential information can be used by a parity
of reasoning, a Board to deny parole, tbe inmate's
attorney must be given disclosure of such information
after the prison or a court has conducted an in-camera
review to redact information that might endanger
the source. Per Title 15, Section 2235, the
information must be necessary to the decision, must
be deemed reliable by the Panel and documented~
such and we must be notified of reports relied on.
Per Section 3321, we must be provided with enough
information in the confidential document that can
be revealed without jeopardizing security and safety
of the institution. To use confidential information
that we' re not given access to as part of a parole
decision, violates Mr. Staich's protected liberty
interest in parole, his procedural and substantive
due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and
Fourteenth to the United States Constitution and
their California counterparts, the confrontation
clauses of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and its California counterpart. Further,
Administrative Boards exercising adjudicatory
functions are not permitted to use information wbich
one of the parties that had not had the opportunity
to controvert which amounts to a denial of the hearing
that was held by the California Court of Appeal in
Today's Fresh Start, Inc. versus Los Angeles County
Office of Education back in 2011 and the dangers
of using confidential information were made glaringly
apparent in this case when the District Attorney,
af~E:r Mr,. S~aicb was ·grant parole in 2011, sent a
letter to the GoTernor that included portions o1.
his juvenile record, which the court order had been
expunged . and ordered. to , be sealed. The , Go..-ernor
base his reTersal .in part on that information •. And
we had nothing we could do about it at that time.
This shows why using confidential information, or
information that's been sealed is completely
improper. 11 ) (Ibid., em!)hasis added, March. 15, 2013
transcripts at pp.. 14-16.) ( See Exhibit "B" for
reference to private attorney's above statement and
objection to -not being provided a copy of the
confidential information.)
4. Petitioner asserts he must be afforded a copy of the alleged
"confidential Information" before his parole can be denied,

and that is, the March 15, 2013 Board Commissioners deliberately
Page-!-S~cond Amended Mandafflus
RJN 355
Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 Page 65 of 70 1111
violated Petiiioner's due process rights, by refusing to afford
hi• or his attorney, the opportunity to review the alleged
confidential· evidence _being used by the Board Commissioners,
as the one and only s~aied "nexus" of evidenc~, used to
effectiTely stop Petitioner's release on parole, and his prior

set maximum term of confinement. Petitioner is entitled to
a copy of the alleged confidential information under the
"Informaiion Praciices Act of 1977," CiTil Code, §1798.25,
provides:
("Routine disclosure of informaiion pertaining to crimes.

offenders, and suspected offenders to law enforcement
or regulatory agencies of federal, state, and local
government shall be deemed to be disclosures pursuant
subdivision (e) of section 1798.24 for purpose of meeting
this requirement.") (Ibid., emphasis added.)
5. Petitioner likewise asserts he must be afforded these alleged
confidential records in accordance with the "California Public
Records Act" acronym (CPRA), under Government Code §6258,

. '
which provides:
("Any person may institute ~roceedings for injunctive

or deelarative relief or writ of mandate in any court
of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right
to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or clas~
of public records under this chapter. The times for
responsive pleadings and for hearings in these proceedings
shall be set by the judge of the court with the object
of securing a decision as to these matters at the earliest
possible time.") (Ibid., emphasis added.)
6. Petitioner also asserts he is entitle to this alleged
confidential information in accordance with the prior mandate
and proceedings held in the published (parole case) of Ochoa
T. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1284. ·On

aandate, Ochoa order's the warden to disclose all information,
but not to disclose the informants identities. Id. Ochoa, at
RJN 356
p. 1284. In addition, as set forth in his '{)rivate attorney's
objections, placed on the March 15, 2013 parole hearing record,
at p. 15, the right to be afforded all confidential information,
with the exception of the informant's identity. See Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, §3321, subdivision (B), which provides:
("As much of the info~mation as can be disclosed without

identifying its source including an evaluation of the
source's reliability; a brief statement of the reason
for the conclusion reached; and, a statement of reason
why the information or source is not disclosed.") (Ibid.)
7. However, the March 15, 2013 Board Commissioners completely
refused to follow their own regulations, by completely denying
Petitioner or his private counsel, in any degree, to see this
alleged confideniial "nexus" information, thereby, denying
Petitioner his due process right to a fair and impartial
administrative parole hearing. Petitioner also asserts his
m~ximum term of confinemeni was violated by the March 15, 2013
Board Commissioners, wbo refused to enforce this maximum
calculated term of confinement. On September 14, 2011,
Petitioner was first found suit.able for parole release and
thereafter, was calculated a maximum base term of confinement

in accordance with In re Dannenberg {Cal.2005) 34 Cal.4~h 1061,
1096 . (see Exhl..bit' "C" f or re f erence t o .

maximum t erm b e1ng
·
set.)
8. VHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for the following relief:
(1). Issue an order to Respondents to enforce Petitioner's
maximum term of confinement as specified in In re Dannenl>erg
Page-!-Second ~mended Mandamus
RJN 357
( C?ll. 200 5) 34 Ca 1. 4th 1061, 1096; In re Morganti (2012) 204
Cal. App. 4th 904, 943; In re JAMES CHARLES STONEROAD, Friday,
April 19, 2013, DJDAR 5063, at 5070; issue mandate to the
Governor Edmund Brown, the mandatory language of Proposition
89, November 8, 1988, which does not allow the Governor to
obtain ''Couri Ordered" siricken criminal records and thereafter,
use these false records as a valid basis to overturn the maximum
set term of confinement;
(2). In the alternative, issue a declaratory order in accordance
with the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code §6258, that
the Respondents (BPH Commissioners) must relinquish all the
alleged confidential information held within Petitioner's CDC&R
C- Fi 1 e , under ., Invest: i g at ion "Report Numb er 201 2 -10 6 9 , " in the
name Ivan Staich or Ivan Von Staich, CDC&R NO. E-10079, and
that is, this allegedly confidential information relates to
a prior victim named Cynitha Topper, who made several statements
about (her) involvement within prior declarations from the
1980s and early 90s, as to Petitioner's 1983 one count second
degree murder conviction. (See Exhibit "D" for prior
declarations signed and sent to Petitioner in prison by Cynitha
Topper, on her own free-wi 11.) ( See Exhibit "E" for reference
to prior parole hearing held on November 28, 2012, where
Respondent, Commissioner Ferguson stated on the administrative
record he would provide 'Petitioner and his priTate counsel
a copy of the alleged confidential information, which he failed
Page-7-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 358
to do before the March 15, 2013 parole_h~aring_was commenced.);

(3). Issue injunctive relief ordering the BPH Commissioners
in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977,"
Civil Code §1798.25, to turnover the alleged confidential
information held within the confidential ~ortion of Petitioner's
CDC&R C-File records, which is held under investigation report
number 2012-1069;
(4). Issue injunctive order to the BPH Commissioners to afford
Petitioner all the alleged confidential information held in
the confidential section of Petitioner's C-File records, as
fully required in accordance with Cal. Code of ~egs. tit. §3321,

subd. (B);
(5). Issue injunctive and declaratory relief as set forth in
Ochoa v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.~pp.4th 1274, 1284,
requiring the state -prison officials to turnover all
information, with the exception of any informant;
(6). Issue injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the
BPH Commissioners to first afford Petitioner all the
confidential information held within the Investigation Rel)ort
Number 2012-1069, and thereafter, order the BPH Commissioners
to afford Petitioner a new parole hearing.within 60 days, which
will allow Petitioner and his private counsel to mount a ~roper
defense to the alleged ''nexus" evidence therein, and to place
verbal objections on the administrative record, as required
in accordance with Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles
Page-~-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 359
County Office Educ. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 436, 463;
(7). Issue any other remedy this Court finds to be appropriate
in· direci correlation with the circumstances and all the

. 1/
evidence presented herein.
Dated t h i s ~ y of November, 2013.
Resp~ully S u b m ~ ~
IV
J_/vD:yfl. ~~/J
ON SA'iCW
Petitioner In Propria Persona
VERIFICATION
I !Tan Von Staich, have read the foregoing mandate and know
the facts therein to be 100% true and correct. I am willing
to testify to the information within this mandamus, if required
to do so during these proceedings.
This legal document is presented under penalty of perjury and

this legal document is filed in accordance with the governing
laws of the State of California.
This legal document was executed on

2013~tha ciiy of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
this r=+~ of November,
D~n~;;f-~;tJ!i
Fn. 1/ Surely this Honorable Court would strictly enforce the
nublished citation of In re Rosenkrantz (Cal:2oq2) 29 Cal.4th
616, 660-661 (holding that the Go.vernor must strictly follow
the language ~et forth in Proposition 89, f'98'8"" Ballot Pamphlet,
which does not allow the Governor to find "Court Ordered" false
crimina:r--records.) See Small v. Superior Court (2000) 79
11
Cal. App. 4th 1000, 1014 ( A trial court's discretion cannot
be arbitrary but rather must be guided and controlled by fixed
legal principles, to be exercised and not to impede or defeat
the . end s of . sub st anti a 1 j us t ice . " ) ( I t al i c s a d de d . ) . · . • ~- ·
(Ibid., emphasis added.) The Governor in this case deliberately
violated the mandates within Prop. 89, 1988 voters Ballot
Pamphlet by locating "Court Ordered" stricken false records.
Page-~-Second Amended Mandamus
RJN 360
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
IVAN VON STAICH,
Petitioner,
v. G054793
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. C53851)

COUNTY,
ORDER
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT:*
The petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition/habeas corpus is DENIED.

Petitioner’s request to proceed as a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP section
391.7 is DENIED on the basis of mootness.
Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, Nancy Tetreault is DENIED.
Petitioner’s request that this court review administrative documents is DENIED.
O’LEARY, P. J.
* Before O’Leary, P. J., Fybel, J., and Ikola, J.
RJN 361

(PC) Von Staich V. California Board of Parole Hearings Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PC) Von Staich V. California Board of Parole Hearings Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 70

Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 70

4th Appellate District Division 3 Change court 

Court data last updated: 01/19/2018 10:58 AM

Date Description Notes

Case 2:15-cv-01182-JAM-DB Document 55-4 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 70

Tetreault is DENIED. Petitioner's request that

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

I~ Th£ APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF ~f~j~~\lA

Ivan Von Staich, )

***REQUEST THAT PEREMPTORY WRIT BE ISSUED***

PRIMARY ISSUE: BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS COMMISSIONER JEFFERY

Ivan Von Staich CDC&R No. E-10079

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page:

Petition For Writs of Mandate And Prohibition ••••••••••••••••••••••• !

Multiple Pr ayer for Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Memorandum of Points And Authorities .................. Throughout Petition

A. The Superior Court Failed To Properly Address That The 2013

C. The Respondents Refuse<l To Strictly Followed THe Ap~ellate

D. Petitioner Also Exhausted His Los Angeles County Superior

E. Narch 15, 2013 Board Commissioner Ferguson

G. Petitioner Has A "VESTED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" That His One Count

Morrisey v. Brewer (U.S.1972)

Ochoa v. Superior Court (2011)

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (Cal.1983)

Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2012)

People v. Wingo {Cal.1975)

Fukuda v .. City of Angels Camp (1998)

California Code of Regulation, Title 15:

Table of Authorities Continued:

Code of Civil Procedure:

§1094, 6, subd. (f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.6

Exhibits Presented Herein Provided:

Exhibit 11 A": Orange County Superior Court 2017 final order

Exhibit "B": CA4(3) June 22, 2016 order allowing Petitioner

Exhibit "C": July 30, 2012 BPH "Decision Review Unit's"

Exhibit 11 D11 : 2013 relevant portion of the BPH transcripts where

Exhibit "E" for reference to Petitioner's request to be provided

Exhibit "F" for reference to news article providing evidence that

Exhibit 11 G11 for reference to "Second Amended Mandate" filed in

Exhibit "H" for reference to recent Contra Costa County final

People v. Duran (1983)

Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2008)

Jocobson v. Schwarzenegger (C.D.Cal.2004)

Bollenger v. Doctors Medical Center (1990)

Additional Exhibits Presented:

Exhibit 111 J 111 for reference to definitive proof BPH Officials in

Exhibit 11 K111 for reference to recent unpublished decision issued

Ivan Von Staich CDC&R No. E-10079

(Petitioner In Propria Persona)

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Fourth Appellate District

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE KATHLEEN O'LEARY AND ASSOCIATE

Petitioner Ivan Von Staich, moves this Honorable Appellate

Court for an order reversing the Or-nge County Superior Court• s

March 10, 2017 mandate/habeas corpus order denying all relief.

(See Exhibit "A" for reference to Orange County Superior Court

In this Court• s order Petitioner was allowed to refile his Los

Angeles County Superior Court grounds for relief, which he has

County Superior Court mandate was filed in the month of January,

waoe-up a confidential file on the female victim Cynthia Bess

Topper, the female directly associated with Petitioner's

determinate sentence of 9 years the attampted murder count II

REQUEST THAT PEREMPTORY WRIT BE ISSUED