Motion-Secondary: JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OM

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-15-2013 4:27 pm

Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: Jul-15-2013 4:25
Filed by: RAYMOND K. WONG

Juke Box: 001 Image: 04127074
DECLARATION OF

JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
Aetal

001004127074

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Oo YD DH BRB BW N &

YR YY KR NY NR KR KY Be eB Be Be Be Be Be
eI AA FB NH fF SF Cee AA AHR BHH HS

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
WILLIAM A. BARNES, SBN 114635
499 14" Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 839-1200

Telephone:
(510) 444-6698

Facsimile:

Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al.,

and all others similarly situated

San ‘LL, E Court

JUL 15 2013
CLERK OF THE COURT
oe Pel ene

~~ Bentiy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA,
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.

SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an
individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an
individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an
individual, and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

eee

CASE NO. CGC-10-501168

DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL

Date: TBD
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 26

I, Paul L. Kranz, declare as follows in support of Plaintiffs’ Additional Reply to

Opposition To Motion For Reconsideration:

1. [have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, unless noted on

information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if

DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIALCom YN DWH F BW NY

~
o

called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and accurate copies of pages 1 through 3, and
9 and 10, from Defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, filed with this Court, for the
purpose seeking dismissal of the Sixth Cause of Action against David Wong.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the portion of the
Court’s Register of Action that contains the Court April 11, 2012 ruling granting the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings brought by Defendants David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage
and Shedrick McDaniels, stating that Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action has been properly pled,
granting Plaintiffs leave to amend to “separate state a cause of action for concealment” and
requiring Defendants’ counsel to prepare a proposed order.

4. Defendants’ counsel Larry Murray has never prepared an order pursuant to the
Court’s April 11, 2012 ruling on Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and accurate copies of Defendants’ objections
to discovery on the grounds that no order or notice of entry of order of the Court’s ruling on
Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion had been served.

6. [have never been served with an order or notice of entry of order of the Court’s
ruling on the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

7. Thave reviewed the Court’s Register of Actions in this case. The Register of Action
contains no proof of service or notice of entry of order stating that the any order of the Court’s
ruling on the Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was served on Plaintiffs or any other party to this
action.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of a letter from and signed
by Defendants David Wong and Shedrick McDaniels in August 2009, as officers of the SFDSA,
and sent to the SFDSA auditors. Their letter states that the Foundation is a part of the SFDSA.
(This letter was attached to the Declaration of Robert Trevizo as an exhibit, which letter is also
attached hereto, as Exhibit O to the Declaration of Paul L. Kranz in Support of Plaintiff's Reply
to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.)

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of an April 23, 2013 letter

2-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIALCo mY DHA RB WN &

ww NM NY NY NY NY NR KN NY SY Be eee eB ewe Be eH
ond A A FF &B NY = SF © we NTN DA WH RB WN SF SO

from Lara Cullinane-Smith to the Court stating that the a document purporting to be the minutes
of a SFDSA May 14, 2008 Board of Directors meeting are not genuine SFDSA minutes.
Attached to Ms. Smith’s letter are the genuine minutes, as well as the purported minutes the
Defendants had submitted to the Court. Ms. Smith’s letter explains that “[b]ecause the
disaffilation with OE3 is one of the key topics in this litigation, I felt I was ethically obligated to
inform the Court of his seeming inconsistency.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of the genuine minutes of
the SFDSA Board of Directors (BOD) May 14, 2008 meeting, attached as an exhibit to the
Declaration of Robert Owyang, a member of the SFDSA BOD on May 14, 2008, who was
present at the May 14, 2008 BOD meeting as a BOD member, who has maintained copies of
minutes of BOD meetings, and attesting to that the purported minutes of that meeting submitted
to the Court have been “altered.”

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of the Declaration of Rich
Owyang attesting to that there was no vote by either the SFDSA BOD or membership to
disaffiliate with OE3.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are true and accurate copies of pages from the
Complaint in this action, containing Paragraphs 44 through 51, 140, 146, 148, 149, 150, 155, 160
and 162.

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit | is a true and accurate copy of the transcript of the April

25, 2013 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.

TL declare vnder Renelty at a’ Under the lewS of
te ated of Glee cia thet the 00 40 (s tne and Covvect and
tok tue declatation Was Get mn ee 15,2013 WK Sen fincsea,

Col foraig, tae l. (a

-3-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIALLAWRENCE D. MURRAY (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES

1781 Union Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084

Attomey for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS

supenitt court
‘COUNTY OF SAN week sco

2U2MAR 14 PH

CLERK OF THE G
-BY:.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH
OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH
LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual,
BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK
McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

Case No. CGC — 10 -501168

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR
OF DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL
ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, AND SHEDRICK
MCDANIELS, AGAINST PLAINTIFFS JOHNA
PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG,
STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, AND
OSCAR TAYLOR; POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS

(CCP § 438 et seq)

DATE: APRIL 11, 2012
TIME: 9:30
DEPT: 302

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT that on April 11, 2012, at the hour of 9:30 a.m. in Department
302 of the above entitled court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, Defendants
DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK McDANIELS, will and
hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §438 (Motion for Judgment On The

Pleadings), for its order entering Judgment in this matter of all claims asserted in the Complaint in favor}

of Defendants DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168

Page I

Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment On The Pleadingsnv

McDANIELS, against Plaintiffs JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN
TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR. This motion is based on these moving papers, this|
noticed motion, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attached declaration and
exhibits, the records and pleading in the court's file, and on any and all evidence and argument which
may be presented at the hearing of this matter.

Dated: March 14, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

ys for Defendants DA WONG, MICHAEL
ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK McDANIELS

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10 - 501168 Page 2
Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment On The PleadingsMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS WONG, ZEHNER,
SAVAGE, AND MCDANIELS, AGAINST PLAINTIFFS JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA,
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, AND OSCAR TAYLOR

I. PREFACE

This motion follows the court having already granted a SLAPP motion dismissing with
prejudice all plaintiffs’ claims against all individual defendants except one claim against one individual
defendant. A review of the remaining claim demonstrates that all individual defendants are entitled to

judgment on the pleadings as the remaining claim is not viable against an individual. CCP § 438. The

remaining claim asserted is against Defendant David Wong on the “Sixth Cause Of Action” for failure
of the corporation to permit review of the documents and records of the non-profit corporation.

Wong is no longer the president of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association (““SFDSA”.)
(Complaint {{] 13, 67) And, as will be seen, the Sixth Cause of Action applies only to compel, by court
order, production against the corporation, and not its members or officers. Even if he was still the
President, it would only permit an action against the corporation, not against the individuals. Hence,
there is no viable cause of action even against Defendant and former SFDSA President David Wong.

II. INTRODUCTION
A. The Plaintiffs: At-the risk of repeating, plaintiffs are the Commanders of the Sheriff's

Department, Chief Deputy Thomas Arata, (recently retired), lead plaintiff Johna Pecot, a Captain in the
San Francisco Sheriff's Department, and others, some of whom supervise other in the Sheriff's
Department. (Complaint {]] 6,7) They sue to overtum elections, and or remove officers from the
SFDSA. Most of the persons to unseat as sought by this suit had already been voted out of office before|
this lawsuit was filed. This suit is a copy of the Complaint filed in US District Court and dismissed
with prejudice against each of these individual defendants, including Defendant Wong.

B. The Defendants: Defendant SFDSA is a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation. (Wong
Dec §{] 6-7) Defendant Wong was President of the SFDSA from 2002 through 2010. The Complaint

uses the definition for this organization, a definition consistent with a “Mutual Benefit” Corporation.

(Complaint ¥ 12) And the Complaint acknowledges that Wong is no longer president having been voted
out of office. (Complaint {f] 13, 67) Wong was sued as President for making multiple statements and
“proposals” during elections (Complaint {J 1-5) and treasurers Zehner, Savage and McDaniels) in

making the payments as directed by the board of directors. (Complaint ff 12-16)

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10 — 501168 Page 3
Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment On The PleadingsThen, the US District Court Order filed on December 14, 2009, signed by Judge Bryer, states:

“Plaintiffs request the Court dismiss their Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
the individual defendants, specifically DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN
SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK McDANIELS. ... Based on the request by Plaintiffs, and for
good cause, the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice as to the individual Defendants, ....” (Murray Dec, Ex. 2)
Then, on June 30, 2010, the identical group of plaintiffs brought the identical charge and factual
claims against the same individual defendants that have been dismissed with prejudice as to these same

claims. Their Complaint for Damages states:

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Concealment of SFDSA Books and Records, Corporations Code §§ 6333 and 6334
On Behalf of Named Plaintiffs Against Defendants SFDSA and DAVID WONG)

164, Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 52-67, above, which are incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.

165. The failure of Defendants SFDSA and DAVID WONG to permit Plaintiffs to
inspect the accounting books and records of SFDSA is in violation of Corporations Code
§§ 6333 and 6334.

Having been dismissed with prejudice, by their very own stipulation and request, they cannot now
claim again that they were wronged and harmed. Based on the dismissal with prejudice of the identical
claims and the identical facts as the basis for the Sixth Cause of Action, any claim is barred and this
matter should be dismissed with prejudice. The motion of the remaining individual defendant on the
last claim for Judgment on the Pleading should be granted. Judgment should enter in favor of the

individual defendants as prayed. A copy of the proposed Judgment is attached.

Ill. _ CONCLUSION

Judgment on all claims against all individual defendants should enter. The Sixth Cause of action
for an order of this Court to compel production of documents under Corporations Code Sections 6333
and 6334, fails and Judgment on all claims.
(a) The Complaint seeks an order to the corporation to produce documents and is not viable

against a former president;

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 9
Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings27

28

(b) There is no Corporation in this case subject to Sections 6333 and 6334 as the SFDSA is a
Mutual Benefit Corporation;

(c) This identical claim against Defendant Wong was raised in US District Court for the
identical actions and failures to act, and was dismissed with prejudice against him and each
of the individual defendants;

(d) Had this been a viable Cause of Action against Wong, it would have been dismissed by the
SLAPP order;

(e) Had this been a viable Cause of Action against Wong, it would have been dismissed by the
SLAPP order subject to dismissal because the identical claim and identical allegations were
brought in US District Court and dismissed with prejudice.

All viable claims against Wong have been or are subject to dismissal with prejudice here and

judgment as to same should enter to include the last remaining claim against the individual defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

March 14, 2012

» MICHAEL
‘ ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE & SHEDRICK McDANIELS

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10 ~ 501168 Page 10
Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings® sow cowTNAN13 @ CGC-10-501168 e@
5/7/12)

RIAL MOTION IN DEPT. 26, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
|CONTINUED FROM MAY-11-2012 TO TRIAL DEPT. MOTION ON JUN-
']18-2012, 8:30 AM IN DEPT. 26 -HOJ PER STIP FILED 5/7/12 AND ORDER
FILED 5/9/12

MAY-07-2012 | |
PLAINTIFF PECOT, JOHNA ARATA, THOMAS OWYANG, RICH |
ITILTON, STEPHEN LEAKE, JOSEPH TA YLOR, OSCAR INDIVIDUALLY |
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED !

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MIN FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY 7

IMA Y-02-2012_|DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MURRAY FILED BY DEFENDANT |
'[WONG, DA VID ZEHNER, MICHAEL SA VAGE, BRIAN MCDANIELS, |

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOS TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

\ ORDER ON SPECIAL MOITON TO STRIKE CAUSES FO ACTION IN THE |
COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT WONG, DA VID ZEHNER,

| _||MICHAEL SAVAGE, BRIAN MCDANIELS, SHEDRICK.

IMA Y-02-2012 |

APR-27-2012 [TRIAL MOTION IN DEPT. 26, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION |
\|CONTINUED FROM APR-27-2012 TO TRIAL DEPT. MOTION AT MAY- |
|] 11-2012, 8:30 AM IN DEPT. 26 a |

APR 27-2012 | MINI MINUTES FOR APR-27-2012 00 AM FOR DEPT 26

[APR-27-2012 [ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
||HEARING SET FOR APR-27-2012 AT 09:00 AM IN DEPT 26

APR-13-2012 | \CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT SAN
\|FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S FOUNDATION JURY DEMANDED, |
[ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 14.0 DAYS |

APR- “13. 2012 ICASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT SAN ||
||FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION JURY DEMANDED, |
ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 8.0 DAYS |

wt

|APR-13-2012  ||CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF APR: 21 2012 CONTINUED TO |
||JUN-22-2012 AT 2:00 PM IN DEPARTMENT 610. NOTICE SENT BY

IDA VID ZEHNER, MICHAEL SA VAGE, BRIAN MCDANIELS, SHEDRICK
JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 20.0 DAYS

|

J
APR-12- 2012 ,|CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT WONG, ]

|

i

[APR-11-2012 [MINI MINUTES FOR APR-11-2012 09:30 AM FOR DEPT 302
iL

a _ |

APR-11-2012  |LAW AND MOTION 302, DEFENDANTS DAVID V WONG, MICHAEL
\|ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS' MOTION FOR
| JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED WITH LEA VETO
||AMEND. PLAINTIFF HAS PROPERLY PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION
(UNDER CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 6333 AND 6334 AND THE COURT |
||GRANTS LEAVE TO AMEND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF THE |
|OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATELY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
||CONCEALMENT. THE COURT CANNOT LOOK OUTSIDE THE FACE OF
|THE PLEA DINGS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEA DINGS. THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT RES JUDICATA
OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASE. THE PREVAILING PARTY IS
|REQUIRED TO PREPARE A PROPOSED ORDER REPEATING VERBATIM
THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING. JUDGE:
JAMES J. MCBRIDE; COURT REPORTER: LA VENA WARD CSR #7077

|
| 4

APR-05-2012 _||MINI MINUTES FOR APR-05-2012 09:30 AM FOR DEPT 302 |

webaccess sfic.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll@Murray & ASSOClges

ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084

October 27, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz

2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213

Berkeley, CA 94710

Re:  Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168

Dear Mr. Kranz:

I received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association
Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents” and enclose the following the
objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order
comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist that I go
through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina
position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed in Superior Court. Please see
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery
occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a
notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in

bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain.

You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining
cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and
not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this
case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which
have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the

foregoing rule.

Very truly yours,
Murray & Associates_.-
. Lo “<
Yun.) Ap Lee An Bg
“Lawrepice D. Murray . : /

ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. Ongaro@Mourrsye& ASSOCLES

ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084

November 2, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz

2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213

Berkeley, CA 94710

Re: — Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501 168

Dear Mr. Kranz:

This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 2011 regarding my objections to
the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most
Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my
previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section

425.16(g).

Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by
removing the deposition from calendar or I will be forced to file a motion for protective order to
block the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable and request sanctions against you in the

amount of $2,500.
Very truly yours,

Murray & Assqciates

Harry S. Stern
David R. OngaroMURRAY & ASSOCIA “ES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084

October 27, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz :

2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213

Berkeley, CA 94710

Re:  Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501 168

Dear Mr. Kranz:

I received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association
Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents” and enclose the following the
objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order th

at I go

comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist
through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina
in Superior Court. Please see

position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery
occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a
notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in

bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain.

You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining
cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and
not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this
case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which
have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the

foregoing rule.

Very truly yours,

Murray & et

awreyce D. Murray /

ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. OngaroMURRAY & ASSOCI/ “ES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084

November 2, 2011

Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710

Re: — Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168

Dear Mr. Kranz:

11 regarding my objections to

This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 20
heriff’s Association Person Most

the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy S P
Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my
previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section

425.16(g).

Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by

removing the deposition from calendar or I will be forced to file a motion for protective order to
block the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable and request sanctions against you in the

amount of $2,500.
Very truly yours,

Murray & Assqciates

cc: Harry S. Stern
David R. Ongaro

Encl.@ Murray & ASSOC ES

ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084

March 8, 2012

Paul Kranz Via Hand Delivery
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz

2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213

Berkeley, CA 94710

Re: — Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168

Dear Mr. Kranz:

Enclosed is our Objection to Notice of Deposition of David Wong. I am not available on the
date you unilaterally selected. Furthermore, there is no Notice of Entry of Order in regards to the
SLAPP motion. Until there is such a notice, discovery continues to be stayed. When discovery
resumes, I ask that you contact all opposing counsel for available dates prior to noticing any

depositions. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ce: Harry S. Stern (w/ encl.) [Via Fax: (925) 609-1690]
David R. Ongaro (w/encl.) [Via Fax: (415) 433-3950]Exhibit A to the Declaration of Robert TrevizoSAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.

444.6" Street_San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone (415) 861-8060, Fax (415) 861-8057

www.sfdsa.org
PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER SERGEANT AT ARM
David Wong Scott Osha Eugene Cerbone Shedeick McDaniets Brian Savage

August 3. 2009

Ms. Catherine Gardner

Miller, Kaplan. Arase & Co.. LLP
180 Montgomery Street. Suite 1840 ~
San Francisco, CA 94104

Dear Catherine,
We are providing this letter in connection with your audits of the consolidated statements of financial

position of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs” Association (the ~“Association”) as of December 31. 2007
and 2006. and the related consolidated statements of activities and cash flows for the years, then ended. for
the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position. activities, and cash flows of the Association in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States. We confirm that we are responsible for the fair
presentation in the financial statements referred to above. We are also responsible for adopting sound
accounting policies, establishing and maintaining intemal control,.and preventing and detecting fraud.

We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief. the following representations made to you during your
audit.

l. The Association has control of the PAC Fund and the Foundation through a majority of shared
governing officers; accordingly, the accounts of the Association, PAC and Foundation have been
consolidated in the financial statements referred to above.

The financial statements referred to above are fairly presented in conformity with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles and include all assets and liabilities under the Association’s control.

Nv

We have made available to you all:

a. Financial records and related data.

b. Minutes of the meetings of the Association Board or summaries of actions of recent
meetings for which minutes have not been prepared.

we

4. There have been no communications from regulatory agencies conceming noncompliance with, or

deficiencies in, financial reporting practices.

There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records

uw

underlying the financial statements.

6. We believe the effects of the uncorrected financial misstatement, if any, are immaterial, both
individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.3.

LI.

R

13.

t4.

SAN FRANCISGO DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.

444.6" Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone (415) 861-8060, Fax (415).861-8057

yoww.sfdsa.org :
PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER SERGEANT AT ARM
David Woag ‘Scott Ostia Eugene Cerbone Shedrick McDaniels. Brian Savage

We acknowledge our responsibility for the design-and implementation of programs and controls to
prevent and detect fraud.

We have no knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud affecting the Associafion invelving:

a Management,
b. Employees who have significant roles irviateraal-control, or
€. Others where the fraud could have-a materialeffect.on the financial statements.

We have no knowledge of any allegations of faaud or suspected fraud affecting the Association
reegived: ia conimumications froma employees, former ewrployees. grantors, regulators. or others,
excéptas disclosed to you,

The Association has no plans or intentions that may materially affest the carrying value or
classification of assets, liabilities, or net asset balances.

‘The following, if any, has been properly recortedsor disclosed in the financial statements:

a Related-party tansastions, including tevenues, expenses, leans, transfers, leasing
b. Qiearantees, whether weitten or oral. widérwhich the organization is cantingeatly tiable.

‘Pliere ave no estinates that may be subject to a material change in the aear term: that have not been
properly disciesed in the financial statements. We dtidérstand that near term means the period
within one year of Hié dite of tlre finanoidl statements. In addition, we hive no knowledge of
voncentrations-existing at the date of thie fitancial statements that make the Association. valxerable
to the risk of severe impact that have not beer-property disclosed in the financial statements.

We até zesporsible for compliance with the fans, regulations, and provisions of contmess and grant
agreements applicable to us, and we have identified and. disclosed to you ali laws, cogtlations and
provisions.of contracts and grat agreements that we believe have a direct and: material effet an the
determination of financial statement amoutts.

‘Phe Assnoiution is an.exempt organization under Section. 501 (c)(S) of the: Internat Revenue Cede.
‘Fhe Fouridatign is exempt front Federal income-under Seetion S01(¢){3:and the PAC under Section
527 of the Internal Revenue Code, Any activities of which we are awace that would jeopardize the
Association's tax-exempt status have-been disclasedto you.SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.
444 6" Street_San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone (415) 861-8060, Fax (415) 861-8057

www.sidsa org
PRESIDENT * VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER SERGEANT AT ARM
David Wong Scott Osha Eugene Cerbone Shedrick McDaniels Brian Savage
15. There are no:
a. Violations or possible violations of laws and regulations (including DOL and [RS

regulations) whose effect should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or

as a basis for recording a loss contingency.
b. Unasserted claims or assessments that our lawyer has advised us are probable of assertion
and must be disclosed in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards

No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies.

c. Other liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed
by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5.
d. Designations of net assets disclosed to you that were not properly authorized and

approved, or reclassifications of net assets that have not been properly reflected in the

financial statements.

16. The Association has satisfactory title to all owned assets, and there are no fiens or encumbrances on
such assets nor has any asset been pledged, other than as disclosed in the financial statements.

17. We have complied with all restrictions on resources (including donor restrictions) and all aspects of
contractual and grant agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the
event of noncompliance. This includes complying with donor requirements to maintain a specific
asset composition necessary to satisfy their restrictions.

18. The Association has not consulted with legal counsel for litigation involving the Association or any
other matters outside the normal course of operations that may result in a loss to the Association

except as disclosed to you.

No events have occurred subsequent to the statement of financial position date and through the date of this
letter that would require adjustments to, or disclosure in, the financial statements.

‘
sings LL Lp sionet hla AL Maile

Date: e/s, Zz 3 / Date: SLi DOKExhibit B to the Declaration of Robert TrevizoCONFIDENTI

r JaOYJO
Pasedap jo SaijWe}|
Joy djey apiaoud OL]
quapjooe
Aouabiew3 Jaye
sayywey djay O1

| aa os
peeegel avsads
y9$28Z0-0€ puny
yaujay Aouabiaw3

e6eegel avsdas

¥S$2820-0€

Bulaeg pue BUIAeS Bunes
pue Buiyoayd| pue Bunjsayd:
e Buryosyo leseued | 75948Z0-0€ -dvSG4S bZv2geL| voRrepunos WSG4S
S|ENPIAIPUy puns
pue Ajunuwo09g
ssoulsng OLE8E8T-6 puny ypalod 9206S92-8ES yalorg YSAIS

ao
| Sunes jessuag | OLE8E82-76 I ZL6Z9E}| pue Bunes NOdsS:
Spx 10} SKo} Ang OL L9Ltps9-899} _ ealiq Aol ySGSS
oesesz-r6__| 1esauag-ysass ij leseusg vSass
ozesesz-p6__ | uoyeonpa-vsq4s veozeg9-899]} _uoneonp3 ysass
i puny
|| OLESESZ-H6 ___ 926 169-899} Ayunwwod ySass
e sJaquaw
pue asuadxa

anjejsiujwupe

lejouaé hed o1 | senp ssaquayy Buryoay jesouag OLESESZ-F6
spuny jo asp

Supjoayo-vsass

Bupjoayo wSasS
SPUN} JO adINOS [_asoding _—| # xe] jeispay | yuNoooy UayoIND

yunoooy yueg

TequinN jnODay_

SO/LE/Zb FAS
sjunooce yueg jo Aewwng

“ouj ‘uojepossy syswayg Andag

; Wed Teo 1

aves JING “Bos
. "WSwom Ay RL. .

“e

SFDSA001106DECLARATION OF ROBERT TREVIZO

I, Robert Trevizo, declare as follows:

1,
2.
3.

Iam currently a Senior Deputy with the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.

I have been an employee of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department since 1992.

I currently am on the board of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

holding the position of Treasurer.

I have been a member of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association since 1992.
As part of my duties as Treasurer of the SFDSA, as soon ‘as I became Treasurer, I
sought to gather and familiarize myself with SFDSA financial and accounting

records.

Among the records that I reviewed and which was contained among the SFDSA
accounting records is a letter from the SFDSA to Catherine Gardner, dated August 5,
2009, sent as part of an audit of the SFDSA’s finances. A true and accurate copy of
that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As Treasurer, I have reviewed other
SFDSA documents that contain signatures of David Wong and Shedrick McDaniels,
as a result of which I am familiar enough with their signatures to believe that the
signatures on behalf of the SFDSA on the letter are the signatures of David Wong and
Shedrick McDaniels.

I have personal knowledge that the aforementioned August 5, 2009 letter is part of the
records of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and is currently in the
office of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an account summary for
various SFDSA bank accounts. The number 94-2838370 is the tax identification
number of the SFDSA.

I have personal knowledge that the aforementioned account summary is part of the
records of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and that said document is currently in the

office of the Deputy Sheriff's Association.10. [explained in Paragraph 9 of my January 10, 2012 declaration that [ went to the San
Francisco Police Credit union and presented copies of two checks that had been sent
to the SEDSA by a donor and that the checks were payable to the SFDSA but had -
somehow been deposited into a San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation account.
When I presented the copies of those checks to the credit union officer, it was only
after I threatened legal action in that meeting with the credit union officer that he
agreed that those monies would be refunded to the SFDSA.

11. Ehave been unable to locate any records, including copies of cancelled checks of the
names of corporations or of individuals, who previously made charitable
conttibutions to the SFDSA for its work in the community, such as the “Shop with a
Deputy Sheriff,” or “Back to School” programs.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge.

Executed.on March 21, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

Robert TrevizoITH

OFFICE OF LARA Cc. SM
° Cow {Lara Cullinane-S™
me " “ Attomey at Law
EL CERRITO. c . “ ein
Phone: (510) 919-3214
April 23, 2013
VIA EMAIL

Hon. Loretta M. Giorgi

San Francisco Superior Court
Department 26

350 Bryant St. .
San Francisco, CA 94103

igiorgi@sfde.org

Re: Inconsistency jn Evidence Regarding the Anti ee Motion in
” pecot v. SFDSA et al., Case No. CGC-10-50

Dear Judge Giorgi:

i in early March,
In reviewing documents produced to the SFDSA by Defendant David Wong, in oan y Mart o
2013, it has come to our attention that there is an inconsistency with the oer am sent en
this Court by Mr. Wong in support of the original anti-SLAPP motion and the gr
to us.

i i 1, supplied a sworn declaration to
Specifically, on May 3, 2011, Mr. Wong, through his counse:

this Court which stated, in Paragraph 41, that the membership of the SFDSA had voted to
disaffiliate with OF3, and which claimed that a true and correct version of the May 2008 minutes

raflacting that vate were attached ac Rxhibit 10, (1 have attached a canv of Mr. Wong’s
declaration and the relevant exhibit thereto as Exhibit A to this letter.)

In March of 2013, as a result of the settlement between Mr. Wong and the SFDSA, Mr. Wong
agreed to provide copies of all the SFDSA documents in his possession. In reviewing those
documents today, I found that one of the documents he provided was a .pdf file of the May 2008
SFDSA minutes. That copy does not contain the paragraph reflecting the OE3 dissolution. (A

copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) No other version of the minutes was
provided — either in Word or .pdf format.Page 2

Hon. Loretta M. Girogi

April 23, 2013

Because the disaffiliation with OE3 is one of the key topics in this litigation, I felt that I was
ethically obligated to inform the Court of the seeming inconsistency in the records given to the
SFDSA and presented to this Court.

Sincerely,
THE LAW OFFICE OF LARA Cc. SMITH

Ze

Lara Cullinane-Smith,
Attorneys for the SFDSA

Co: Larry Murray, Esq (via Email)
Paul Kranz, Esq. (via Email)
Don Wilson
David Mastagni, Esq. (via Email)EXHIBIT ALawrence D. Murray (SBN 71536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ENDORSED
FI

1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123 Sen Frntsod cbintFinh
Tel: 435) 673-0555 Superior Court
Fax: (415) 928-4084 _ MAY 8 pay

‘Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, week OF THE Courr

MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE,
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS Glerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH Case No. CGC - 10 -501168

OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH ,

LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG IN
and on behalf of all other similarly situated SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO
STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT, WITH REQUEST FOR
v ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (CCP §
425.16)
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Date: MayZ6, 2011
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY Time: 9:30 a.m.
SHERIFE’S FOUNDATION, a California Dept: 302

Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual,
BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK.
McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100,

Defendants. .

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francis i
4 SA, L; isco Superior Court No: -10-
Declaration of David Wong In Support of SLAPP Motion o CGE 10— S01188 Pagelwn

I, David Wong, declare

. Introduction

Lam a resident of the City and County of San Francisco and make this declaration on my own
personal knowledge unless stated otherwise.

I present this declaration in order to demonstrate that each of the major allegations of the
Complaint on file here implicates, revolves around, is intricately involved with and or stems from
a protected activity as T understand that praise from my reading of the SLAPP law.

I became a Deputy Sheriff in October 1990. Since that time I have remained and am currently a

Deputy Sheriff.

After becoming a Deputy Sheriff, I joined the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, our
union, which is a non-profit corporation.

The San Francisco Deputy Sherif? 's Association, (“SFDSA”) as a non-profit corporation, is
subject to and operates under the California Coxporations Code.

The SFDSA is not now and have never been a public benefit corporation, though we are sued in
this Complaint as a public benefit corporation. It does not exist to benefit the public.

A review of the Articles of Incorporation, as well as the Constitution and Bylaws demonstrates
that the purpose of the SFDSA is not for the benefit of the public (e.g. a public benefit
corporation) but rather a mutual benefit corporation, in that we exist to protect and benefit our
members. A true and correct copy of the Constitution and Bylaws applicable and on point for
the purpose of the organization is attached as Exhibit 9, page 9 and incorporated herein by

reference.

Election for Union President in 2002 and 2010

In 2002, I was elected President of the union, the SFDSA. From that time on until 2010, I was
and remained continuously the President of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Union. I acted in
the capacity of president for a non-profit, as that role is defined under the Corporation’s Code. I

attended just about every meeting of the membership and the board of directors.

- 9. Iran for President in 2010, and according to the committee, lost by 8 votes out of 864 potential
votes.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10— 501168 " Page2

Declaration of David Wong In Support of SLAPP Motion10. In addition to the union, I was a member and the President of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's
Foundation, also a California non-profit corporation which is used to better the presence and
image of the deputy sheriffs in the community including but not limited to outreach programs to
at risk youth and helping those elders who are also at risk.

11. Finally, in 2007, I was a candidate for the office of Sheriff of the City and County of San

Francisco running against the incumbent Mike Hennessey, and continue to be interested in that-

“position.

C. The Plaintiffs Here Can Not Succeed In Their Burden Of Proof Since Their Claims In
This Case Are Virtually Identical To Those Dismissed With Prejudice In Federal Court -
12. Uhave read the Complaint in this matter (“Class Action Complaint For Breach of Contract etc.,”)
and reviewed the actions and inactions which forms the basis for the Complaint.
13. L begin by noting that these same claims were made against me and the other individual plaintiffs
in the federal case dismissed with prejudice two years ago. In that case, all of the claims raised
were dismissed in December 2009, by the US District Court in San Francisco with prejudice. r
was present when it was put on the record i in the federal court proceeding that all of these claims

were to be done forever and that there would be no further litigation on these claims.

D. Many of The Claims In This Complaint Relate To Events In 2002

14. [note that many of the claims were based on events from 2002, such as the election for dues
increase, referred to as the “scheme involved inducing the SFDSA members, including the
Named Plaintiffs, to approve an increase in their dues by nearly 50%,” as set out in the
Complaint, paragraph 2. This vote and approval by the SFDSA members oceurred in 2002.
The Complaint, paragraph 26, acknowledges that the votes and the dues became effective in
2002.

15. Also, the Complaint in paragraph 17 alleges that in 2004, 1 committed an act of fraud by forming
the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation (“Foundation”) without the specific approval of
the SFDSA Board of Director. However, nothing could be further from the truth. First, it to
forming the Foundation, there was no need to get the Board of Directors approval from the :
SFDSA since there was no money and no property transferred from the SFDSA. Second, and

Pecot, et al. vs. SEDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC - 10 ~ 501168 Page3
Declaration of David Wong In Support of SLAPP Motionmore importantly, the Foundation was formed in the SFDSA office, by some of the same
members of the Board of Directors, after extensive discussion, as a way to help the community,
our image in the community and particularly disadvantaged communities, all of which it has
done. We agreed at the time that we could not do it from inside the SFDSA as it was not within

our purpose statement, as set out in our Constitution and Bylaws. See Exhibit 9, page 4.

E. Protected Activity #1& 2 - Dues Increase Election in 2002 and Board Authorized
Expenditures Including Authorized Expenditures For Payment of the Presidents Wages

16. Going through the Complaint, I note that most of the events claims relate to activities which I
participated in in furtherance of my First Amendment rights and other activates authorized by
law to participate in a union election. I will explain that below. .

17. Initially the scheme to induce SFDSA members to increase their dues was a vote of the
membership which I participated and oversaw, as a procedure authorized by law under
Corporation Code. :

18, In 2002, as the president of the SFDSA I noted that there were insufficient funds in the union
treasury to meet our ongoing obligations. At the time, each member of the union was paying
$17.01 per bi-monthly paycheck, approximately $37.00 per month. From that amount, we could
not meet all of the SFDSA’s obligations as they existed. I then put before the deputy sheriffs an
opportunity to vote to increase the dues. °

19. At the time of the dues election in 2002, we had over 700 plus members. Today we have over* |
840 members.

20. Additionally, while operating the election process I communicated with all of the membership to
explain the need for a dues increase, which was to point out that our overhead and expenses
exceeded the SFDSA income. In 2002, I exercised my free speech rights and faxed out the flyer
throughout the department to all of the deputies, about 700+ regarding why it was that we would
need money. The Complaint alleges that my statements, my opinions and calculations, were
fraudulent. Oo

21. The Complaint alleges the same. In Paragraph 19, it alleges that I sent out a “proposal” to all
members for a dues increase. I do not disagree with that allegation. It was not a “contract” or

promise on how money would be spend as I don’t have that power. First, as President, I was

Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC ~ 10— 501168 Page 4
Declaration of David Wong In Support of SLAPP Motion22.

__ separate accounts dedicated for specific expenditures.” This speaks to my exercise to the

23.

24.

25.

exercising my right to participate in a discussion about a particular topic of interest to all 700
plus members in a matter of mutual interest, the amount of money that we could use and where
we might use it. Second, as President, I don’t have the right to designate how money is to be
spent by the organization. The right to determine expenditures is in the hands of the SFDSA’s
Board of Directors. If 1 had that kind of power, there would be no need for a board of directors.
The Complaint at paragraph 2 states that “in order to induce the members to approve the
proposed increase, WONG and the SEDSA disseminated to all SFDSA. members a document that

contained representations that specific percentages of the dues collected would be set aside in

members of my right of freedom of speech.

Contrary to these assertions, I did not promise, nor am I aware of any other SFDSA official who
promised and committed to a particular distribution of the dues or any part of the dues increase,
nor could any of us because that power to decide distribution is given to the Board of Directors,
not any particular union official. And, more importantly, any representation, if, made, would have
been nothing other than my proposal to the SFDSA Board of Directors which they could follow
but did not need to follow since it is their decision alone that counts. I did participate in the -
discussion and how it was that we were in aneed for such funds.

The Complaint alleges that as part of the scheme, the moneys were distributed to me and others
for wages. (Complaint Paragraph 4, “[MJisappropriated dues were directed to WONG,...”)

The Complaint makes specific allegations that it was theft and wrongful taking as the payment of]
my wages. However, there was no scheme other than to pay my wages, which was specifically
approved by the SEDSA Board of Directors, a point previously proven to plaintiffs on no less
than three occasions. And even the Complaint agrees that the money paid was for my wages.
See Complaint, Paragraph 30.

The action of authorizing the expenditure of SEDSA funds for my salary was actions considered!
and approved by the Board of Directors at a Special Board of Directors meeting setting my salary}
on December 9, 2003, for the expenditure of funds, as is a procedure authorized by law, a hearing}
and decision by the Board under the Corporation Code. A true and correct copy of the
authorization made by the SFDSA Board of Directors at the SFDSA Board. of Directors Special

Pecot, et al. vs. SEDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 5
Declaration of D