Preview
ONTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-16-2012 1:22 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: Mar-16-2012 1:20
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03538172
DECLARATION OF
JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et.
001003538172
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE,
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case No. CGC — 10 -501168
DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG IN
SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF GRANTING OF;
SLAPP MOTION IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL
ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, AND SHEDRICK
MCDANIELS, AGAINST THE COMPLAINT
OF PLAINTIFFS JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS
ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, AND OSCAR TAYLOR (CCP
§ 425.16)
Date: March 29, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 302
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order
Page 1I, David Wong, declare
A. Introduction
1. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge unless stated otherwise.
2. Ibecame a Deputy Sheriff about 1990.
3. Since that time until May 2011, I was a Deputy Sheriff.
4. After becoming a Deputy Sheriff, I joined the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association, our
union, which is a non-profit “mutual benefit” corporation.
B. Election and Function As SFDSA President
5. Prior to 2010, I was elected to the position of President of the SFDSA.
6. Iserved as President from 2002 to 2009, and served with compensation permitted by Association
members and the Board of Directors.
7. From my personal knowledge being in the SFDSA and for having reviewed the books and
records of the SFDSA, as far as I can tell that there has never been compensation for holding or
performing in the position of Treasurer of the SFDSA.
8. As of 2010, I was no longer the President for the SFDSA.
9. As the officer and member of the SFDSA, plaintiffs were very active in the SFDSA and were at
all times knowledgeable that the only officer of the SFDSA to received compensation for
services was the President position, which I held for eight years. The Plaintiffs were present
during discussions and arguments leading up to elections that the President would be the only
compensated officer of the SFDSA. Some of the plaintiffs openly arguing against the level or
even compensating me for my work as the President during meetings and SFDSA elections.
C. Treasurer For The SFDSA (Union) Had No Function, Oversight, Or Participation With
The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Foundation
10. I understand that the current Treasurer of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association
(SFDSA), Robert Travizo, has presented a declaration to the Court suggesting some irregularity
with me and or others not providing to the SFDSA or the association, documents and records
relating to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Foundation.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
There is nothing irregular or suspicious about the Foundation not providing Foundation records
to the Association.
First, the SFDSA or Association is the union which represents members (all of whom are Deputy
Sheriffs in the San Francisco Sheriff's Office) in collective bargaining, grievances, discipline,
wage claims and the like. If is not a function of the union to perform public outreach, and tend to
the needs of the disabled, the less fortunate and those who historically suffer.
The officers of the union or Association deal exclusively with the union affairs and union
business. By its Articles and Bylaws, it is formed for the exclusive benefit of its members,
hence a Non Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation.
And, we as the Union or Association have never had the job or function of monitoring the
Foundation nor would we. We have more than enough to do on our own.
The Foundation has an entirely separate organization. It functions with separate rules, governing
boards, mechanisms, bank accounts and at a totally separate location.
I, and most of San Francisco, realize and observe that the Foundation functions in a charitable
capacity helping the elderly, taking disadvantaged children for back to school and holiday
shopping based on the donations received by the Foundation for this purpose. The Foundation
does not spend money for the benefit of the deputy sheriffs.
It raises donations by means of a phone bank and solicitation and uses the funds to lessen the
suffering of many in the community, and especially in communities which have traditionally
suffered such as Hunter’s Point and old folks homes.
While occasionally there are times when a check could be meant for one entity, such as
Association, that gets deposited into the other’s account, by and large, the entities, their functions
and their banks accounts remain separate and distinct.
I understand according to the declaration of Robert Trevizo, the current SFDSA Treasurer,
demanded the bank account records of the Foundation from me, which I did not give the records
of the Foundation. I did not give the Union (SFDSA) these documents because (a) it is none of
their business, (b) Trevizo and others currently acting as officers of the SFDSA have
demonstrated a lack of understanding that the Foundation is separate and distinct from the Union|
(c) that the Union or Association cannot dictate what the Foundation can and cannot do and how
it operates, and (d) this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit me and cause
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 3
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27
28
more hostility by accusations of wrongdoing when there are none, consistent with the current
litigation in this court and in the US District Courts.
E. All Of The Documents For The SFDSA Were Left For The President Don Wilson Who
Acknowledged Receipt Of Them
20. I stayed as President from December 2009 when Don Wilson won the election as the President
pursuant to the Association By-laws until the end of J anuary 2010 when Don Wilson took over.
21. I explained to both Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo that all Association documents are in the office
of the President and also in the plastic bins in the adjacent office. Each bin has a printed label
stating what years of the records that contained. All documents contained in both the office of the}
President and the adjacent office bins are the same documents that produced for the Federal case
that copy to the Compact Disc. As of my stepping out of the office of President, I left with Don
Wilson all of the SFDSA documents and all of their files.
22. Prior to leaving office and as part of the US District Court proceedings, all of the documents
requested and some that were not were made available to Paul Kranz, the opposing counsel, over
a two or three day period, through the then attorneys for the Union, David Ongaro office. The
document produced were approximately 3,000 to 4,000 documents.
23. J also continue voluntarily work with Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo for the transition process
from January to approximately June. I spent approximately 10-15 hours weekly showing Don
Wilson and Bob Trevizo the documents, the office accounting software, and other President and
Treasurer functions. As of the time that I left, Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo, had all of the
documents related to the SFDSA (union) and none of the documents related to the Foundation.
23,1 have no knowledge what Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo did with those documents after I left.
F. The Association Has No Right To Demand Or Receipt of Foundation Documents As Both
Are Separate Entities
24. The Association is formed under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(5) which is Labor
Organization and it’s under Mutual Benefit Corporation with California. The Foundation is
formed under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) which is Charitable Organization and it’s
under Public Benefit Corporation with California.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27
28
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
9
31.
32.
33.
34,
The Association has its own Federal Tax ID and California Corporation Number for tax
purposes. The Foundation also has its own and they are separated and different from the
Association.
The Association has a governing board which is independent from the governing board for the
Foundation. Both have separate Bylaws and Constitutions which do not involve the other.
The Association collects membership dues to assist members in grievances, fighting
administrative actions against members, negotiate members’ collective bargaining agreement for
wage, fringe benefit and working condition. The Foundation fund raised from public and pays for
items that benefit the disadvantaged children, seniors.
The Foundation can not demand the Association for any document, record viewing, nor can the
Association demand from the Foundation.
Further, neither organization has any language in its article of incorporation nor by-laws reflect
any relationship between the organizations.
All the money Foundation raised are specifically to benefit disadvantaged children, family and
seniors and NOT for the purpose of the for membership organization expenses as paragraph 10 off
Trevizo declaration.
The Error In An Association Deposit Was Immediately Rectified When Brought To The
Attention of the Foundation
Notably, there is no claim in the Complaint about an error in payments received by the
Foundation for the Association. This is separate and distinct from any existing Complaint and
not any subject of this suit.
However, if it was an issue, the receipt of payments by the Foundation for Association was
immediately rectified and he funds returned to the Association by the Foundation. A true and
correct copy of the check that was deposited in error and the repayment by the Foundation to the
Association is attached as Exhibit 1.
I immediately contacted the San Francisco Police Credit Union regarding the check incidents,
and instructed the credit union to return the money to either the donor or the Association.
Talso informed the Foundation Board of Directors, volunteers and part-time employee that the
Foundation would not accept any donation not directly address to “San Francisco Deputy Sheriff:
Foundation”.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 5
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27
28
35. Since that time I have observed that the Foundation continues to monitor deposits to be sure the
same mistake does not happen again.
36. Finally, while Mr Trevizo recalls a conversation with me about “breaking” one entity or the
other, I think he has it in error. A more accurate rendition would be that with the number of
lawsuits and the costs of litigation, this will break all of us.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
signed on March 15, 2012, in San Francisco, California.
he thy.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 6
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderPROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco,
California 94123; (415) 673-0555.
On this date, I served the following document DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WONG, ZEHNER, SAVAGE AND McDANIELS’ OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant
Paul L. Kranz = [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern, Lara Cullinanae-Smith
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Rains Lucia Stern, PC [BY MAIL]
Berkeley, CA 94710 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
Tel: (510) 549 5900 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Fax: (510) 549 5901 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690
Ismith@rlslawyers.com
Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy
Sheriffs’ Foundation
David R. Ongaro [BY MAIL]
Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 433-3900 Fax: (415) 433-3950
[Xx] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United
States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above.
[XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above
address(es).
[ ] [BY FAX] _ I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above
shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number
with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b)
receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact
properly received.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 16, “GEE ~
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, et al
Defendants.
EXHIBIT ONE
TO THE DELCARATION OF DAVID WONG
CHECK THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN ERROR AND THE REPAYMENT BY THE FOUNDATION
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 8
Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderMay 4, 2011
SF Deputy Sheriffs Foundation
P.O. Box 77650
San Francisco, CA 94107
Re: Deposit Adjustment
Dear Member,
This letter is to inform you that a check in the amount of $300.00, deposited to Account 1374911 S90
(Share Draft Checking) on 10-08-2010 has been returned and charged back to your account due to the
reason(s) marked below.
DX] check is not signed or properly endorsed
Ci stale Dated
[_] Non-Sufficient Funds
Refer to Maker
O Stop Payment
[_] Other (Post Dated)
[[] uncollected Funds
A returned item fee was not assessed. A copy of the item and the corresponding adjustment receipt is
enclosed.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Credit Union.
Sincerely,
ZZ
Thomas Hughes
Risk Management
2550 Irving Street, San Francisco, CA 94122 415-682-3315 ph
415-242-6415 faxSh. ce
GAOT ONION
May 4, 2011
SF Deputy Sheriffs Foundation
P.O. Box 77650
San Francisco, CA 94107
Re: Deposit Adjustment
Dear Member,
This letter is to inform you that a check in the amount of $500.00, deposited to Account 1374911 S90
(Share Draft Checking) on 05-07-2010 has been returned and charged back to your account due to the
reason(s) marked below.
Check is not signed or properly endorsed
Stale Dated
(1 Non-Sufficient Funds
[X] Refer to Maker
|_| Stop Payment
[_] Other (Post Dated)
O Uncollected Funds
A returned item fee was not assessed. A copy of the item and the corresponding adjustment receipt is
enclosed.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Credit Union.
Sincerely,
Thomas Hughes
Risk Management
2550 Irving Street, San Francisco, CA 94122 415-682-3315 ph
415-242-6415 faxCheck Image
ttem Reference: 863
EOUITY RISK PARTNERS, Bio.
Ty MONTCOMER Seth Ra
SAN FRANCISCO, CA S108
“Gan Freneitca Depaity Sherr Assoc, ee
+: Sai Prancleco Deputy Sheriff Assoc,
446th Strvst
SRR
ASHLEY - 39739
921078498 0021
Meerimeeies EB sense- weeers MEMBER JOURNAL eRe .
we Account Detail Account # Previous Balance © Amount Balance Available
% FROM SHAREDRAFT CHECKING see 1S90 2711.68 900.00 2211.68 = 2211.68
‘TO OPS SUSPENSE CORRECTION CL 8.870.910 500.00
* DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT FOR 05-07-2010
ce
CREDIT UNION
TE FROANCAL PRBTNER FOR.LAW ENFORCEMENT
KfersiT our | 9550 trving Street SF DEBUTY SHERIFFS FOUNDATION
San Fi i: C,
+5 (200) 254901 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
2 httpviwww.sipcu.org
T00 https://cu-online.sfpcu.org
Vch19041186(1) 04 MAY 11 11:26 Br 1 Op 423'Net Amt 0.00
x
| HAVE REVIEWED THIS RECEIPT FOR ACCURACY AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSACTION IS CORRECT.Check Image
Item Reference: 1540
EQUITY RIBK PARTNERS, INC.
101 MONTQOMERY STREET, 16TH FLOON
BAN FRANCS, CA Std,
: Baaetor “San Francinco Deputy Sherif? Assee.
ane THREE LNORED, QUIOD YASH Aeneeessesensraccecsesreesdecetnransensses
ee ee
“ ‘ ‘OPERATING ACCOUNT
pe
Ban Francisca Deputy Shettf Assoc.) .
44 8b Set -
‘Gan Francisco GA wins tae a if x \
Aorez010
ASHLEY - 68604 -
>321076a9B¢ - 0094
=
Amount: $300.00aeeeee MEMBER JOURNAL ee :
ee Account Detail Account # Previous Balance Amount Balance Available
w, FROM SHAREDRAFT CHECKING Be] SIO. 2211.68 300.00 1911.68 = 1911.68
TO OPS SUSPENSE CORRECTION CL 8.870.910 300.00
Ii DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT FOR 10-08-2010
ce
CREDIT UNION
"HE FRAC PRITAER FOR LAW ENFOMEMENT
ASS or) 2550 Irving Street SF DEEUTY SHERIFFS FOUNDATION
San Francisco, C.
a an FOO) 2oeigo) SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
2 http//www.sipcu.org
[00 httpsu/cu-online.sfpcu.org
Vch19041187(1) G4 MAY 11 11:27 Br 1 Op 423 Net Amt 0.00
x
| HAVE REVIEWED THIS RECEIPT FOR ACCURACY AND
ACKNGWLEDGE THE TRANSACTION iS CORRECT.
Preview
ONTO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-16-2012 1:22 pm Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Filing Date: Mar-16-2012 1:20 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03538172 DECLARATION OF JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et. 001003538172 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, and SHEDRICK McDANIELS 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. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case No. CGC — 10 -501168 DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF GRANTING OF; SLAPP MOTION IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, AND SHEDRICK MCDANIELS, AGAINST THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, AND OSCAR TAYLOR (CCP § 425.16) Date: March 29, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 302 Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order Page 1I, David Wong, declare A. Introduction 1. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge unless stated otherwise. 2. Ibecame a Deputy Sheriff about 1990. 3. Since that time until May 2011, I was a Deputy Sheriff. 4. After becoming a Deputy Sheriff, I joined the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association, our union, which is a non-profit “mutual benefit” corporation. B. Election and Function As SFDSA President 5. Prior to 2010, I was elected to the position of President of the SFDSA. 6. Iserved as President from 2002 to 2009, and served with compensation permitted by Association members and the Board of Directors. 7. From my personal knowledge being in the SFDSA and for having reviewed the books and records of the SFDSA, as far as I can tell that there has never been compensation for holding or performing in the position of Treasurer of the SFDSA. 8. As of 2010, I was no longer the President for the SFDSA. 9. As the officer and member of the SFDSA, plaintiffs were very active in the SFDSA and were at all times knowledgeable that the only officer of the SFDSA to received compensation for services was the President position, which I held for eight years. The Plaintiffs were present during discussions and arguments leading up to elections that the President would be the only compensated officer of the SFDSA. Some of the plaintiffs openly arguing against the level or even compensating me for my work as the President during meetings and SFDSA elections. C. Treasurer For The SFDSA (Union) Had No Function, Oversight, Or Participation With The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Foundation 10. I understand that the current Treasurer of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association (SFDSA), Robert Travizo, has presented a declaration to the Court suggesting some irregularity with me and or others not providing to the SFDSA or the association, documents and records relating to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Foundation. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. There is nothing irregular or suspicious about the Foundation not providing Foundation records to the Association. First, the SFDSA or Association is the union which represents members (all of whom are Deputy Sheriffs in the San Francisco Sheriff's Office) in collective bargaining, grievances, discipline, wage claims and the like. If is not a function of the union to perform public outreach, and tend to the needs of the disabled, the less fortunate and those who historically suffer. The officers of the union or Association deal exclusively with the union affairs and union business. By its Articles and Bylaws, it is formed for the exclusive benefit of its members, hence a Non Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation. And, we as the Union or Association have never had the job or function of monitoring the Foundation nor would we. We have more than enough to do on our own. The Foundation has an entirely separate organization. It functions with separate rules, governing boards, mechanisms, bank accounts and at a totally separate location. I, and most of San Francisco, realize and observe that the Foundation functions in a charitable capacity helping the elderly, taking disadvantaged children for back to school and holiday shopping based on the donations received by the Foundation for this purpose. The Foundation does not spend money for the benefit of the deputy sheriffs. It raises donations by means of a phone bank and solicitation and uses the funds to lessen the suffering of many in the community, and especially in communities which have traditionally suffered such as Hunter’s Point and old folks homes. While occasionally there are times when a check could be meant for one entity, such as Association, that gets deposited into the other’s account, by and large, the entities, their functions and their banks accounts remain separate and distinct. I understand according to the declaration of Robert Trevizo, the current SFDSA Treasurer, demanded the bank account records of the Foundation from me, which I did not give the records of the Foundation. I did not give the Union (SFDSA) these documents because (a) it is none of their business, (b) Trevizo and others currently acting as officers of the SFDSA have demonstrated a lack of understanding that the Foundation is separate and distinct from the Union| (c) that the Union or Association cannot dictate what the Foundation can and cannot do and how it operates, and (d) this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit me and cause Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 3 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27 28 more hostility by accusations of wrongdoing when there are none, consistent with the current litigation in this court and in the US District Courts. E. All Of The Documents For The SFDSA Were Left For The President Don Wilson Who Acknowledged Receipt Of Them 20. I stayed as President from December 2009 when Don Wilson won the election as the President pursuant to the Association By-laws until the end of J anuary 2010 when Don Wilson took over. 21. I explained to both Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo that all Association documents are in the office of the President and also in the plastic bins in the adjacent office. Each bin has a printed label stating what years of the records that contained. All documents contained in both the office of the} President and the adjacent office bins are the same documents that produced for the Federal case that copy to the Compact Disc. As of my stepping out of the office of President, I left with Don Wilson all of the SFDSA documents and all of their files. 22. Prior to leaving office and as part of the US District Court proceedings, all of the documents requested and some that were not were made available to Paul Kranz, the opposing counsel, over a two or three day period, through the then attorneys for the Union, David Ongaro office. The document produced were approximately 3,000 to 4,000 documents. 23. J also continue voluntarily work with Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo for the transition process from January to approximately June. I spent approximately 10-15 hours weekly showing Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo the documents, the office accounting software, and other President and Treasurer functions. As of the time that I left, Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo, had all of the documents related to the SFDSA (union) and none of the documents related to the Foundation. 23,1 have no knowledge what Don Wilson and Bob Trevizo did with those documents after I left. F. The Association Has No Right To Demand Or Receipt of Foundation Documents As Both Are Separate Entities 24. The Association is formed under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(5) which is Labor Organization and it’s under Mutual Benefit Corporation with California. The Foundation is formed under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) which is Charitable Organization and it’s under Public Benefit Corporation with California. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27 28 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 9 31. 32. 33. 34, The Association has its own Federal Tax ID and California Corporation Number for tax purposes. The Foundation also has its own and they are separated and different from the Association. The Association has a governing board which is independent from the governing board for the Foundation. Both have separate Bylaws and Constitutions which do not involve the other. The Association collects membership dues to assist members in grievances, fighting administrative actions against members, negotiate members’ collective bargaining agreement for wage, fringe benefit and working condition. The Foundation fund raised from public and pays for items that benefit the disadvantaged children, seniors. The Foundation can not demand the Association for any document, record viewing, nor can the Association demand from the Foundation. Further, neither organization has any language in its article of incorporation nor by-laws reflect any relationship between the organizations. All the money Foundation raised are specifically to benefit disadvantaged children, family and seniors and NOT for the purpose of the for membership organization expenses as paragraph 10 off Trevizo declaration. The Error In An Association Deposit Was Immediately Rectified When Brought To The Attention of the Foundation Notably, there is no claim in the Complaint about an error in payments received by the Foundation for the Association. This is separate and distinct from any existing Complaint and not any subject of this suit. However, if it was an issue, the receipt of payments by the Foundation for Association was immediately rectified and he funds returned to the Association by the Foundation. A true and correct copy of the check that was deposited in error and the repayment by the Foundation to the Association is attached as Exhibit 1. I immediately contacted the San Francisco Police Credit Union regarding the check incidents, and instructed the credit union to return the money to either the donor or the Association. Talso informed the Foundation Board of Directors, volunteers and part-time employee that the Foundation would not accept any donation not directly address to “San Francisco Deputy Sheriff: Foundation”. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 5 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP Order27 28 35. Since that time I have observed that the Foundation continues to monitor deposits to be sure the same mistake does not happen again. 36. Finally, while Mr Trevizo recalls a conversation with me about “breaking” one entity or the other, I think he has it in error. A more accurate rendition would be that with the number of lawsuits and the costs of litigation, this will break all of us. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed on March 15, 2012, in San Francisco, California. he thy. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 6 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderPROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco, California 94123; (415) 673-0555. On this date, I served the following document DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WONG, ZEHNER, SAVAGE AND McDANIELS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant Paul L. Kranz = [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern, Lara Cullinanae-Smith 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Rains Lucia Stern, PC [BY MAIL] Berkeley, CA 94710 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500 Tel: (510) 549 5900 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Fax: (510) 549 5901 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690 Ismith@rlslawyers.com Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation David R. Ongaro [BY MAIL] Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 433-3900 Fax: (415) 433-3950 [Xx] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above. [XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). [ ] [BY FAX] _ I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b) receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact properly received. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on March 16, “GEE ~ Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, et al. Plaintiffs, v. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, et al Defendants. EXHIBIT ONE TO THE DELCARATION OF DAVID WONG CHECK THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN ERROR AND THE REPAYMENT BY THE FOUNDATION Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 8 Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opp To Motion For Reconsideration of SLAPP OrderMay 4, 2011 SF Deputy Sheriffs Foundation P.O. Box 77650 San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Deposit Adjustment Dear Member, This letter is to inform you that a check in the amount of $300.00, deposited to Account 1374911 S90 (Share Draft Checking) on 10-08-2010 has been returned and charged back to your account due to the reason(s) marked below. DX] check is not signed or properly endorsed Ci stale Dated [_] Non-Sufficient Funds Refer to Maker O Stop Payment [_] Other (Post Dated) [[] uncollected Funds A returned item fee was not assessed. A copy of the item and the corresponding adjustment receipt is enclosed. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Credit Union. Sincerely, ZZ Thomas Hughes Risk Management 2550 Irving Street, San Francisco, CA 94122 415-682-3315 ph 415-242-6415 faxSh. ce GAOT ONION May 4, 2011 SF Deputy Sheriffs Foundation P.O. Box 77650 San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Deposit Adjustment Dear Member, This letter is to inform you that a check in the amount of $500.00, deposited to Account 1374911 S90 (Share Draft Checking) on 05-07-2010 has been returned and charged back to your account due to the reason(s) marked below. Check is not signed or properly endorsed Stale Dated (1 Non-Sufficient Funds [X] Refer to Maker |_| Stop Payment [_] Other (Post Dated) O Uncollected Funds A returned item fee was not assessed. A copy of the item and the corresponding adjustment receipt is enclosed. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Credit Union. Sincerely, Thomas Hughes Risk Management 2550 Irving Street, San Francisco, CA 94122 415-682-3315 ph 415-242-6415 faxCheck Image ttem Reference: 863 EOUITY RISK PARTNERS, Bio. Ty MONTCOMER Seth Ra SAN FRANCISCO, CA S108 “Gan Freneitca Depaity Sherr Assoc, ee +: Sai Prancleco Deputy Sheriff Assoc, 446th Strvst SRR ASHLEY - 39739 921078498 0021 Meerimeeies EB sense- weeers MEMBER JOURNAL eRe . we Account Detail Account # Previous Balance © Amount Balance Available % FROM SHAREDRAFT CHECKING see 1S90 2711.68 900.00 2211.68 = 2211.68 ‘TO OPS SUSPENSE CORRECTION CL 8.870.910 500.00 * DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT FOR 05-07-2010 ce CREDIT UNION TE FROANCAL PRBTNER FOR.LAW ENFORCEMENT KfersiT our | 9550 trving Street SF DEBUTY SHERIFFS FOUNDATION San Fi i: C, +5 (200) 254901 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 2 httpviwww.sipcu.org T00 https://cu-online.sfpcu.org Vch19041186(1) 04 MAY 11 11:26 Br 1 Op 423'Net Amt 0.00 x | HAVE REVIEWED THIS RECEIPT FOR ACCURACY AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRANSACTION IS CORRECT.Check Image Item Reference: 1540 EQUITY RIBK PARTNERS, INC. 101 MONTQOMERY STREET, 16TH FLOON BAN FRANCS, CA Std, : Baaetor “San Francinco Deputy Sherif? Assee. ane THREE LNORED, QUIOD YASH Aeneeessesensraccecsesreesdecetnransensses ee ee “ ‘ ‘OPERATING ACCOUNT pe Ban Francisca Deputy Shettf Assoc.) . 44 8b Set - ‘Gan Francisco GA wins tae a if x \ Aorez010 ASHLEY - 68604 - >321076a9B¢ - 0094 = Amount: $300.00aeeeee MEMBER JOURNAL ee : ee Account Detail Account # Previous Balance Amount Balance Available w, FROM SHAREDRAFT CHECKING Be] SIO. 2211.68 300.00 1911.68 = 1911.68 TO OPS SUSPENSE CORRECTION CL 8.870.910 300.00 Ii DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT FOR 10-08-2010 ce CREDIT UNION "HE FRAC PRITAER FOR LAW ENFOMEMENT ASS or) 2550 Irving Street SF DEEUTY SHERIFFS FOUNDATION San Francisco, C. a an FOO) 2oeigo) SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 2 http//www.sipcu.org [00 httpsu/cu-online.sfpcu.org Vch19041187(1) G4 MAY 11 11:27 Br 1 Op 423 Net Amt 0.00 x | HAVE REVIEWED THIS RECEIPT FOR ACCURACY AND ACKNGWLEDGE THE TRANSACTION iS CORRECT.