Barnett Response to Defendant's Opposition to 3 Judge Panel

8/8/2019 Barnett Response to Defendant's Opposition to 3 Judge Panel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barnett-response-to-defendants-opposition-to-3-judge-panel 1/11

- II

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEE EASTER N DlSTR lCT OF CALIFORNIA In.. 1

12

3

4

5

r.------------------------------------------------\ ,

A Civil CASE: IO - C V - O ~ ~ ~ E - F C D - D A D- Fj,,a,i\AE-,>,,5,LF \:E-T.

I Pamela Barnett, Pro se Plaintiff

2541 Warrego WayISacramento, CA, 95826

1 Telephone: (415)846-7170

[email protected]

3eiencra;:ts.Dale: October 22 , 2010 T i m e 10:00 a . m . 1------------------------------------------------v

.- Judge: 27. 8 t h C i . (DAD) iSLPEfi i !3F;: Z O U F T OF CF;ilCO3/\c'lA

C O J N T Y OF SACRAMENTO...........................................................

X

6 ,

Pam ele Barnet! ' Case No . 34-201 0-00077415 IiPla~ntifi ', )

v. 1Dam on Jerrell Dunn et al. 1

Defendants )1 -----------------------------------------------------------vI\

I , Pame la Barnett, declare unde r penalty O F perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S .C. s1746:

1. Plaint i f f I Declarant in anticipation of leave of the C ourt for economy and brevity

/1 conso lidates Pla intiffs reply to D efenda nts' opposition to a Voting R ights Act 42 U SC

I/

51973C three-judge District Court with 28 US C 32284 with the reply fil ing due October ,I

15, 2010 acco rdingly. That the U .S. Election Assistance Com mission b y its directorI

11I'1 Thom as Wilkey (EAC ) represented by Assistant U.S . Attorney Yoshinori H . T. H imel 1

I1 (AU SA ) of the U nited States Attorney's Office in Sacramento filed opposition on O ctober ~

8, 2010, and the State of California Defendants Orange Cou nty R egistrar Kelley (OCR ), ~I' Plaintiff 's R EP LY to Defe ndan ts' Opposition to 3-Judge Pan el- Page 1 of 10

I



Secretary of State Bow en (SOS) and State Attorney G eneral Brown (A G) represented I

5 1 comb ined on the same hearing date scheauled for October 22. 2010 at 50:00 a.m, in the

2

3

6 1 forenaon in Courtroom 27 before ihe Honorable Dale A . Droma. as rime IS of the essence

I

, by Anthony P. O'Brien Esq. Deputy Attorney Genera l (State Defenda nts) f i led op pos ~tion

~on O ctober 7, 2010 having authority over Can d~ da te Defendant Dunn who has not

I

7 with imminen:; i rreparable ha!-r r, d e s e v i n ~ f equity reiie:'bsfore th e Sallot is ?rimed fsr!I

4 1 appeared individually herein; and that this and the varlous m otions to dismiss are

~~

E t i 76 1Ga;lernber 2, 2Oi Si General E,ect;om w;:P 2 dec iararo p juagmer,: a-;d restraint

s2 Both the State Defendants and

EACr e p e c ~ rgue

thai

sornenow rh e 7eNoen:

r o J~~~sd'icfisnsAre/~o1;CoveredunderSect'ior;5astheAC response states:I

"Sectioii 5 does rzot coljer. th e Corlr~n.i*liose ctiolr ylairlrifl cilalieriges. Th:> is ?qlr

cove l-ed j~irlsd ict ior ls s forirrd or 28 C.F.R.Part 51 a 4 p p e i ~ d i i ~ .r-clr7geC'c>ilrlns isrzot or7 th is lis t aild i~ 11ot co l-erec ib13Secrioiz 5. Likel.r.ise, rlze Stare ofCalzforizia is

co~~er .edr114 for vo tin g clzarlges tizar ill ~p ac r in gs , LMer-ced.l$oizter-e~.,r- Yzlba

Corulries, the olz k covered jul-isdictio1.2~rz Califorrzia, Siuc e th e facts raised irz rlriscase i l lvolve Orange Cou nh. a~ zdMr.. Dn ~zr l's oiztesred residerzc!. irl 01-arzge

C o u n g , Sectiorz 5 does rzot appl?., arzd a~rzerzdirlghe coi?~plairzro assert a Sectiorl

5 cl ai m w or ~l d e futile. The State Deferldnrzts a lso argilc rliar plnirztiff is a residerrrof Sacrameizto C O U II Q *.'

To w it P lair~ tiff eplies that any purported local practice different than w hat s hould only

22 ! be a uni form statewide pract ice under C ai fo rn a Elect ion Code (CEC) procedures and

practices to handle the statewide voter registration database. Reg istration mustI

safeguard the da tabase a gainst both registration fraud and voter fraud stem ming fromI

database m alpractice by State Defendants; that was raised for the first t ime after the~

26 1 First Am ended Cornplaint (FAC ) was served u pon OC R. OCR by an admission against iI

I Plaintiff 's REP LY to De fendants' Oppo sition to 3-Judge Panel- Pag e 2 of 10li



' Defendants are wi thout discret ion to us e, and that are presumably pre-cleared for11

statewide use under the VRA s ec t~o n 97399 and the Help Am er~ cao Vote Act of 202

(HPIVA) 42 US C 42 U.S .C. §ST5544 with re lated sections that also imp acr use in the

1

2

l~6 referenced Sfateof California covereo' couistlez ofi Kings. Mereed, fL$onferey,or 'ui/bs

that Cal . Adm in. Cod e i i t . 2, €j19050.6 ( ' I of August 18, 1978 is in use whi le ignoring the '

California Election Co de s ections 5 21 50 thru €521 54 ministerial ma nda tes that StateI

I

7 1 Cor?nr/es. har s ia iew ide ~ ra c r i ce nc r o i e j ~ r e sre fuqgibte a nd p -e ciu ae I x a .

: C3l. 4dmi n . Code tit. 2! 19050.6 Barclays Of i c i a i Caiifornia Code of Fiegu lations

Currentness Tit le 2. ,Ladrninistration D ivis ion 7 . Secretary of State Chapter I . doter

I Registrat ion Anicie 2. Postal Registration of Voters § 190 50 .6 Requ iremen ts h r Valid

Reg istration. In the event that the coun ty cierk receives an aff idavit of registration that

does n ot include portions of the inform ation for which s pace is provided, the cou nty clerk

or registrar of voters shall apply the fol lowing rebuttable presu mp tions: (a) If no middle ~

name or ini t ial is show n, i t shal l be as sum ed that n one exists. (b) If no occupat ion is

show n, i t shal l be presumed that the person is unemployed or has no occ upa t ion. (c) If

no party aff i liat ion is show n, i t shall be assu m ed that the registrant has "declined to

state" a party aff i liat ion. (d) If the year of birth is-'om itted, t shall b e presu me d that theyear of birth was eigh teen years or m ore prior to the date of the next succee ding

elect ion, in accordance with the'vo ter 's statement under penal ty of per jury that he or she

wil l be eighte en yea rs of age at the t ime of the n ext election. [e) If no prior reqistration is

sho wn , it shall be pres um ed that the p erson is not reqistered to vote in Ca li fornia. An

elector's a ff idavit of reqistration a s a voter sha ll be val id no twithstandin a the fai lure to ~

complete the information to which the ab ove presumptions app lv, absent evidence

rebutting the presu mp tion. (f) If the da te of execution is om itted but: (1) the aff idavit is

receive d in the off ice of the cou nty clerk , on or before the 29 th day prior to the elec tion;

or (2) the registration affidavit is postm arked o n or be fore the 29th day prior to the lelection an d arrives in the off ice of the c ounty clerk no t later than four days after the 29th iday, i t shal l be presum ed that the aff idavi t was executed on or before the 2 9th day pr ior

to the elect ion. HISTOR Y: 1. New sectio n f iled 5-20-7 7; effective thirt ieth day thereafter ~(Reg ister 77, N o. 21).2. New subs ection (f) f i led 8-1 8-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter

(Register 78, No. 33) . 2 CCR €j905 0.6. This database is current through 8/20/10

Register 201 0, No. 3 4 1

/ Plaint if f's REP LY to Defendants' Opposi t ion to 3-Judge Pan el- Pag e 3 of 10I



I 1 there is no rebuttable presumption afforded for omissions wiih use of CE C 92150 (a) 10 j11

I

2 and or (b) as to the Defendant D un n's March 1 3 2009 fraudulently executed voterI II

3 registration affidavit is not a properly e xecuted affidavit. as shown as F AC Exhibit A

I4 / thereby requires OCR and SO S affirmative action with CEC 92 153 mand ates of State

I5 ' Defend ants no t only to reject the improperiy executed affidavit I application but requires:

1;6 I' " { c ) f the affidavit does nct contain all of the information required, and theI county elections official is n e i able :o collect the missing information by

I

8 I telephone, but the m ailin g ~ d d r e s s i the affiant is legible. the county elesiioos9 i officiai shall inform Ihe affiant of the reason for rejes'siox aqd sha!i send X the

10 ,, affiarot 2 new C alifornia Vote; Eegistratior; Fgi-T,.",, 1:iL ,

1 2 A ad t h e r eby .to preven t regis'iraliol-i f raud rider42 LJSZ

Si97Sgg ana with +A\iA works

\h/ili$i?VRA to prevent actual vote f r a ~ dn t h ~everal slates stil l uslng s database . arid

mandates Slate Defendants action be done \i\ litnou; a?)/ r e ~ u t is b i e resurnptlon ths:

conflicts with the outdated nullity California Administrative Code 619050.6 :

"(e) If no prior registration is sho wn , it shall be presum ed that the pe rson is notregistere d to vote in California. An elector's affidavit of registration a s a votershall b e valid notwithstanding the fai lure to com plete the in for ma ti or^ to which theabo ve presumptions apply, absent evidence- ebutting the presu mption.

''

3. Tha t Plaintiff contends there is absolutely no need for m aintaining a voter

registration databa se in C alifornia or any other state, i t is voluntary. That any da tabase

works to the detrirnent of individual suffrage rights and privi lege to vote, and is a tool of

control use d by party bosses and their agents to condu ct camp aign funding and actual

vote fraud w ith impunity: especial ly so, when the State D efendants as mem bers of the

EA C don't assiduously obey the mandates of the VRA 1 NVRA a nd HA VA. and that by 1Iadmission of the OCR are not rigorously obe yed, at least in Orange County, me aning I

28 1, that voters wh o reside in covered cou nties along with P laintiff individually and as a I

I 4s 19 , Republ ican Party member in Sacram er~to oun ty ALL are impacted ws ta tew id$ f ra ud I

Plaintiff's REPLY to Defenda nts' Oppos ition to 3-Judge Panel- Page 4 of 10I



in registration an d actual vote fraud is fung ible for use in statew ide elections with1

Iemph asis that voter registration is not voting pe r se, a qua li f ied perso n rnay provisionally I

11 I

3 1 vore at any general elect ion n eed not register, and w hen open ar pr imaries alsoI

6 1 i i 2 ~ 1 ds shov in by the 1996 outrageous ca se of i n j uy to the ' i ono~a ble4 3 3 e ~ .

I' Bcrcan here in Cali fornia, and reze ntiy, as well aocumef ited sti ll o~ t ra qe 2u s!y x is is a sI;I

s j, iv, th e 2302 case of i n j u r y prover 3y Derr ; Ga;.dener. -$s;-./ste; f - a ~ ds made pcssibie,!

Ill

s I by the insdiar- pyactices a nd procebur-es ir, use by the Stale Defendants 2nd their agents

4

l1

12 in California and that act by undue inf iuecce as Dem ocrats to the detrimen t of Pla in i i f

~ir i along witb~hose other Repi lbl ican Party members. T hose D e fe ~ d an t saeili iate corrupl;

~;1 2 enterprise reg istration fraud by Dern ociats that is primari ly done for aciua i vote fraud.I!

I,

4. Lets be clear, Pla ~n t i f f as shown that voter registration fraud us ed for actual vote

I

13 1 5. That Plainti f f introduced the actual evidence of f raud ongoing in New York

II

I

14 I beca use Director Wilkey wa s a State Ele ction off icial during that t ime a nd is well aw are

5 f raud absolutely existed before the NVRA that w ~ th m plernentat lon ctually ~nc reas ed

l5

21 / of the States to coord inate each da tabase w ith the other, there wil l continue to be i

I I

I

I of the pro cess that registration fraud plays to faci l i tate actual vote fraud in that state stil l

17

18

16 I ongoing. That even today wi th the new Voter registrat ion form N ew York mal iciously

confuses the voter reg ~st rat lon rocess w ~ t h ctual vot rng. That even though the two I

processes are mutual ly exclusive, and a ny state that ignores the Nationwide impact of I

1 Plaint if f's RE PLY to Defendants' Opposi t ion to 3-Judge P ane l- Page 5 of 10I

19 ho w actual voting fraud works frorn to state to state maintaining a database . IVIr W ilkeyI

2 0 1 and State Defendants know that wi thout a EAC r igorous ove rs~ gh t f the respo nsibi l~t iesI

22 1 interstate / intrastate mult iple vot ing, dead vot ing, false impersonat ion an d stolen identi ty

23

IIf raud that wi th implemen tat ion of NVRA and HAV A were enacted to prevent.

I



' 6. That although the E AC an d D OJ m ust act together as it is suing varlous states to I

I comp ly with the implemen tation of HAVA per se, they have not affirmatively acted to

I Iprevent the actual rampa nt registration fraud an d actual vote fraud asso ciated with the

111 use of the databa se. In fact the DG J has totally reneged on its duty and even turned the~~1 clock bac k to Jim Cr ow day s wher: in 2008 2 body of thugs were intimidating voters from11'I voting at tne general election iv Ph; iadelph~z20,! ~u tra ge ou sly o1 prosecuting ans

1 ';he DO, .rew pP,i i~sopn)r nde- Ertc Hslser IS :POUT /egsgo~Ol w egs Sad -her6 13 1~

, *~ . , .

j j s i i ze in E x c c x t i ~ es the , j y ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ' j /3 ~ 3 3 ~ 3 :tamp poiicy roo?!~-

i.

?lainlif! s

strack aunibfoun.=jedz

read tha l thed.S. O;,

Eiecriion AssistanceI

Commission, a n d the Califomla State 4tro:ney Ge nera i ALL claim to nav e no

responsibility tc enforce Federal 0:-stale elec'iions la ws, particularly tnos e th ai were pilr

In place. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.42 U.S.C, 9 797.3, to protect

minorities by requiring all state election law s to be pre-cleared by the U .S . DO J toI

Iensure that the strength of the minority vote was not watered d ow r~with illegal votes that

irit "JI"ifI are a result of i l legal voter registrations from real persons voting m ul t~ pl eimes, dead11/ persons, or imaginary o nes adde d to the Ca l~fo rnia oter registration data base for

exam ple. Suffrage is a privilege that all cit izens are entitled to unde r the State and U.S .

Constitution - except for those cit izens that had taken action to comp rom ise their right,

I8 , All m ain points m ade by all defendan ts wil l be addressed herein: I

a. That Plaintiff as a matter of judicial notice sued the EA C in State court beca use it

Ihas a minis ter~ al uty backed LIP by the US DO J in statute to oversee State I

! Actions including those practices a nd proc edures as to voter registration voting ~Iiper se that wou ld impact covered districts, and that the E AC would have b een

I treated the sam e in state court as in Fed eral in this ma tter; and that P laintiff wa s 1Plaintiff 's RE PL Y to De fendants' Oppo sition to 3-Judge Panel- Page 6 of 10





1aisiJu0qae1

I~pea'ue

1auaaaaesuud

1-aeJouAuoseaI

pe4suoe

Jo0apvAne

u81euseaswaI

.oapwAu3eoee3

a6Oua8ep~0q

angeAoudalAa0s

aaopyeleMe

eaJuwa8h

Iu1uw30fa

3e4~aoE

pnuo3aeoW

supaqiepy1

~pmSSBjaS.'

.eea

ae~wsaoeBeA

aaeq63o

osgudpalsehpI

fp~aeJoeusua

aasueaahuJI1uaa01ayO#udP



1'Aueouo~ie

!1 hqseA~uayd0AnJa!i leaAose4eAd

II, 0IOn~pauaai

IOea33ea6uuaongd

~

ua3u4uap1aOI

!u4UnAeuepn1Aseduupunuy

y3esup8(1a~I /CaaaAo'uuaqeuI

saap0uewdnI

aaeauuuJaIaAj

s#uEd9pauaeeop

u3AsZ4eswa

qtp1'Haz3aAaan

.eeaESpau1

apspipeMhsa

ceswo%o

N7NADA

,uaaysAJq

eahpedsnes'as

-jaa1napeOn

34ahlaoee4



I) point f rom M arch 1 3, 2009 onw ard the State defendants could ha ve corrected the error ~

~2 1 of un-rebuttable presumption but didn't and as such thereby e xerted undue inf luence on 1

o I November 2. 2010 general e iect~o nmay only vote with a prouis iona~ ote

3

-43: 3la i~ t i f ; rhould be grzn'ied E 28 LISC 52284 three-judge district cwr ' ; panel ir

I ithe R epubl ican pr imary and general elect ion whether Plaint if f contends Mr. Dunn by a 1

I

8 th i s mstter 3': first impression, and as time is of the essence with imminent i rreparabie

I strict expres s reading of the California Election C od e is not even en tit led to vote unti l he

i/ submits a properly executed aff idavi t of registrat ion and now less than 15 days before

9 I-~erm es en ~in g f equity relief before the No\ lernber 2 : 2 C 2 O Gene ral Elect ion wi th 2

so deciara rary jujudqmen: ana restrain:. 3esp ite ;he rea uir em en ts of 42 USC Cj l973C: as ec

!.I alteration of voting qua li f ications and p roced ures by arbitrary and ca pricious actior,

12 und er color of state law by State or poli t ical subd ivision for declaratory judgm ent on

13 , den ial or abridgem ent of voting rights, Plaintiff is entit led to a three-jud ge district court

1 4 ; with app eal to Su pre m e Court: as to Section 19731 (c)(d): Prohibited acts , with breac h

1 5 of fiduciary du ty as per 42 U SC Sect ion 19 73F F-I State responsibi l it ies: and wi th 42

1 6 1 USC S1973gg that appl ies herein wi th any State that maintains and u ses a voter

1 7 registrat ion data base; and wh ose State Off icers are Fede ral agents; and

18 That Plainti ff is entitled to further an d different rel ief the Co urt herein deem s

I

19 j necessary for justice to be done herein to prev ent further vote fraud in the State o f II I

20 California a nd of the se veral States.I

2 2 Sacramento, Cali fornia2 3

Telephone: (415)846-7170 iPlaint i f f 's REPL Y to De fendants' Oppo si t ion to 3-Judge Pane l- Pag e 10 of 1 0



/

:CnjoeAao

6CeUL

pnE lau

0SSON

OouSOdaSOauuee

aaasuDnAu

PVQLae1S

dYHBAYaH1u

uS/w~1op

,C ACe$34p'$:d

seeu28

S~1CC&

so(apC2J

Barnett Response to Defendant's Opposition to 3 Judge Panel

Documents