Preview
E-FILED
4/20/2018 4:58 PM
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT M. DOWD, #070685 By: C. Cogburn, Deputy
MARIO U. ZAMORA, #258721
JASKARAN S. GILL, #316615
2 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB,
3 DOWD & GIN, L.L.P.
111 E. Seventh Street
4 Hanford, CA 93230 Exempt From Filing Fees
Telephone: (559) 584-6656
5 Facsimile: (559) 582-3106 Pursuant to Ca. Gov. Code §6103
E-mails: dowd@griswoldlasalle.com ; zamora@griswoldlasalle.co m; gill@griswoldlasalle.com
6 Attorneys for Contestants
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
10 NATHAN VOSBURG, STEVE RAINE, RON CASE NO.: 17C-04294
RAMSEY, RON LANDER, and TANYA
11 WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE
STOLZ, in their personal and professional
DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL SAINT-
12 capacities as Councilmembers for the City of MARTIN AND CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS
Coalinga, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED
13 INTERVENORS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITIOl'
Contestants, TO ELECTION CONTEST
14
vs.
15
DATE: April 27, 2018
COUNTY OF FRESNO, in its official capacity; TIME: 10:00 AM.
16 BRANDI L. ORTH, in her official capacity as YlJii~~: 5
Uon. Mark Snauffer
Registrar of Voters; and DOES 1-200, inclusive,
17
18 Defendants.
19 DETAINEE-AMERICANS FOR CIVIC
20 EQUALITY, an unincorporated association,
21 Proposed Intervenor.
22
23 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Contestants NATHAN VOSBURG, STEVE RAINE,
25 RON RAMSEY, RON LANDER, and TANYA STOLZ (collectively "Contestants"), in their
26 personal and professional capacities as Councilmembers for the City of Coalinga, hereby
27 submit their Objection to the entire Declarations of Michael Saint-Martin ("Saint-Martin")
28 and Christian Williams ("Williams") (collectively "Declarants"), on the following grounds:
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,
COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS
GIN , LLP
111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v. Fresno County, et al.
HANFORD. CA 93230
Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 17CECG04294
I. Contestants object to the entirety of the Declarations on the grounds that they contain
2 irrelevant information; include inadmissible hearsay; lack sufficient foundation; and are
3 based on facts not personally perceived by the Declarants.
4 2. Contestants object to (i) Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin and (ii)
5 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that the Declarants'
6 subjective intent to remain at California State Hospital - Coalinga ("CSH-C") is
7 irrelevant. (Cal. Evid. Code§§ 350 and 351.) Declarants do not have an option as to
8 whether they will remain at CSH-C. Declarants have not exercised any free-will to
9 cause them to be domiciled within CSH-C. Moreover, upon release, Declarants cannot
10 remain at CSH-C. Pursuant to California law, an inmate or person involuntary
11 committed to a state institution cannot be domiciled within the state institution for
12 voting purposes. (See Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 872; 55 Ops. Cal.
13 Atty. Gen. 125 (1972).)
14 3. Contestants object to (i) Paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin and (ii)
15 Paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that the Declarants state a
16 legal conclusion which is not rationally based on the perception of the witness. (Cal.
17 Evid. Code§ 800.)
18 4. Contestants object to Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin on the
19 ground that it includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The
20 Declarant's political involvement within CSH-C does not have any bearing as to
21 whether the Declarant is domiciled within the City of Coalinga. The CSH-C's staffs'
22 actions are irrelevant to this election contest.
23 5. Contestants object to Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Declaration of Williams on the
24 ground that it includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The
25 Declarant's political involvement within CSH-C does not have any bearing as to
26 whether the Declarant is domiciled within the City of Coalinga. The CSH-C's staffs'
27 actions are irrelevant to this election contest.
28 II
2
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,
COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DEC LARA TIO NS
GIN, LLP
111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v.
Fresno County, et al.
HANFORD, CA 93230
Fresno County Superior Court Case No. l 7CECG04294
6. Contestants object to Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it
2 includes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code§ 1200.)
3 7. Contestants object to Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Williams to the extent that the
4 statement is not based on the personal perception of Williams. (Cal. Evid. Code§ 800.)
5 8. Contestants object to Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it
6 includes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.)
7 9. Contestants object to Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it
8 includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The primary
9 purpose of an election contest is to inquire into the grounds of the contest. (Maddux v.
10 Walthall (1903) 141 Cal. 412, 415.) The election contest proceeding is not aimed to
11 analyze the personal rights of those involved. (Benson v. Superior Court In and For
12 Napa County (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 551, 562.)
13
14 Dated: April 20, 2018 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB,
DOWD & GIN, L.L.P.
15
~
16
17
By: fk
JASKARAN S. GILL
18 Attorneys for Contestants
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
G RI SWOLD, LaSA LLE,
COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS
GIN, LLP
11 I E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v. Fresno County, et al.
HANFORD. CA 93230
Fresno County Superior Court Case No . 17CECG04294
PROOF OF SERVICE
CCP §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5; FRCP 5(b)
2 I am employed in the County of Kings, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 111 E. Seventh Street,
3 Hanford, California 93230.
On April 20, 2018, I served the following document(s): OBJECTION TO
4 DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DACE'S OPPOSITION, on the interested parties in
this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed
5
as follows:
6 Daniel C. Cederborg Counsel for Defendants
Dean L. Stuckenschmidt
7 FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL
8
2220 Tulare Street, Suite 500
Fresno, CA 93721
9
Janice M. Bellucci Counsel for Detainee-Americans for Civic
10 LAW OFFICE OF JANICE M. BELLUCCI Equality
11 1215 K Street, l 71h Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
12
[] (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the United States mail at Hanford, California.
13 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
14 [X] (By Mail) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection
and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the
15
U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Hanford, California,
16 in the ordinary course of business.
17 [] (By Overnight Delivery) I deposited such envelope in the Federal Express/UPS Next
Day Air/U.S . Mail Express Mail depository at Hanford, California. The envelope was sent
18 with delivery charges thereon fully prepaid.
19 [X] (By Electronic Mail) I caused such documents to be sent to the stated recipient via
20 electronic to the e-mail address as stated herein.
21 [] (By Personal Service) I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the offices of
the addressee(s) shown above.
22
[] (By Facsimile) I caused each document to be delivered by electronic facsimile to the
23 offices listed above.
24 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
that the foregoing is true and correct.
25
[] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this
26
Court at whose direction the service was made.
27
~IA
Executed on April 20, 2018, at Hanford, California.
28
4
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,
COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS
G IN, LLP
111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et.al v.Fresno County, et al.
HAN FORD. CA 9J 2jO
Fresno County Superior Court Case No. I 7CECG04294
Preview
E-FILED 4/20/2018 4:58 PM FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT M. DOWD, #070685 By: C. Cogburn, Deputy MARIO U. ZAMORA, #258721 JASKARAN S. GILL, #316615 2 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, 3 DOWD & GIN, L.L.P. 111 E. Seventh Street 4 Hanford, CA 93230 Exempt From Filing Fees Telephone: (559) 584-6656 5 Facsimile: (559) 582-3106 Pursuant to Ca. Gov. Code §6103 E-mails: dowd@griswoldlasalle.com ; zamora@griswoldlasalle.co m; gill@griswoldlasalle.com 6 Attorneys for Contestants 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 NATHAN VOSBURG, STEVE RAINE, RON CASE NO.: 17C-04294 RAMSEY, RON LANDER, and TANYA 11 WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE STOLZ, in their personal and professional DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL SAINT- 12 capacities as Councilmembers for the City of MARTIN AND CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS Coalinga, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED 13 INTERVENORS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITIOl' Contestants, TO ELECTION CONTEST 14 vs. 15 DATE: April 27, 2018 COUNTY OF FRESNO, in its official capacity; TIME: 10:00 AM. 16 BRANDI L. ORTH, in her official capacity as YlJii~~: 5 Uon. Mark Snauffer Registrar of Voters; and DOES 1-200, inclusive, 17 18 Defendants. 19 DETAINEE-AMERICANS FOR CIVIC 20 EQUALITY, an unincorporated association, 21 Proposed Intervenor. 22 23 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Contestants NATHAN VOSBURG, STEVE RAINE, 25 RON RAMSEY, RON LANDER, and TANYA STOLZ (collectively "Contestants"), in their 26 personal and professional capacities as Councilmembers for the City of Coalinga, hereby 27 submit their Objection to the entire Declarations of Michael Saint-Martin ("Saint-Martin") 28 and Christian Williams ("Williams") (collectively "Declarants"), on the following grounds: GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS GIN , LLP 111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v. Fresno County, et al. HANFORD. CA 93230 Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 17CECG04294 I. Contestants object to the entirety of the Declarations on the grounds that they contain 2 irrelevant information; include inadmissible hearsay; lack sufficient foundation; and are 3 based on facts not personally perceived by the Declarants. 4 2. Contestants object to (i) Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin and (ii) 5 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that the Declarants' 6 subjective intent to remain at California State Hospital - Coalinga ("CSH-C") is 7 irrelevant. (Cal. Evid. Code§§ 350 and 351.) Declarants do not have an option as to 8 whether they will remain at CSH-C. Declarants have not exercised any free-will to 9 cause them to be domiciled within CSH-C. Moreover, upon release, Declarants cannot 10 remain at CSH-C. Pursuant to California law, an inmate or person involuntary 11 committed to a state institution cannot be domiciled within the state institution for 12 voting purposes. (See Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 872; 55 Ops. Cal. 13 Atty. Gen. 125 (1972).) 14 3. Contestants object to (i) Paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin and (ii) 15 Paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that the Declarants state a 16 legal conclusion which is not rationally based on the perception of the witness. (Cal. 17 Evid. Code§ 800.) 18 4. Contestants object to Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 of the Declaration of Saint-Martin on the 19 ground that it includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The 20 Declarant's political involvement within CSH-C does not have any bearing as to 21 whether the Declarant is domiciled within the City of Coalinga. The CSH-C's staffs' 22 actions are irrelevant to this election contest. 23 5. Contestants object to Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Declaration of Williams on the 24 ground that it includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The 25 Declarant's political involvement within CSH-C does not have any bearing as to 26 whether the Declarant is domiciled within the City of Coalinga. The CSH-C's staffs' 27 actions are irrelevant to this election contest. 28 II 2 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DEC LARA TIO NS GIN, LLP 111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v. Fresno County, et al. HANFORD, CA 93230 Fresno County Superior Court Case No. l 7CECG04294 6. Contestants object to Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it 2 includes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code§ 1200.) 3 7. Contestants object to Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Williams to the extent that the 4 statement is not based on the personal perception of Williams. (Cal. Evid. Code§ 800.) 5 8. Contestants object to Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it 6 includes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.) 7 9. Contestants object to Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Williams on the ground that it 8 includes irrelevant information. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 and 351.) The primary 9 purpose of an election contest is to inquire into the grounds of the contest. (Maddux v. 10 Walthall (1903) 141 Cal. 412, 415.) The election contest proceeding is not aimed to 11 analyze the personal rights of those involved. (Benson v. Superior Court In and For 12 Napa County (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 551, 562.) 13 14 Dated: April 20, 2018 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, DOWD & GIN, L.L.P. 15 ~ 16 17 By: fk JASKARAN S. GILL 18 Attorneys for Contestants 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 G RI SWOLD, LaSA LLE, COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS GIN, LLP 11 I E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et. al v. Fresno County, et al. HANFORD. CA 93230 Fresno County Superior Court Case No . 17CECG04294 PROOF OF SERVICE CCP §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a, 2015.5; FRCP 5(b) 2 I am employed in the County of Kings, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 111 E. Seventh Street, 3 Hanford, California 93230. On April 20, 2018, I served the following document(s): OBJECTION TO 4 DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DACE'S OPPOSITION, on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed 5 as follows: 6 Daniel C. Cederborg Counsel for Defendants Dean L. Stuckenschmidt 7 FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL 8 2220 Tulare Street, Suite 500 Fresno, CA 93721 9 Janice M. Bellucci Counsel for Detainee-Americans for Civic 10 LAW OFFICE OF JANICE M. BELLUCCI Equality 11 1215 K Street, l 71h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 12 [] (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the United States mail at Hanford, California. 13 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. 14 [X] (By Mail) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the 15 U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Hanford, California, 16 in the ordinary course of business. 17 [] (By Overnight Delivery) I deposited such envelope in the Federal Express/UPS Next Day Air/U.S . Mail Express Mail depository at Hanford, California. The envelope was sent 18 with delivery charges thereon fully prepaid. 19 [X] (By Electronic Mail) I caused such documents to be sent to the stated recipient via 20 electronic to the e-mail address as stated herein. 21 [] (By Personal Service) I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the offices of the addressee(s) shown above. 22 [] (By Facsimile) I caused each document to be delivered by electronic facsimile to the 23 offices listed above. 24 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 25 [] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this 26 Court at whose direction the service was made. 27 ~IA Executed on April 20, 2018, at Hanford, California. 28 4 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, DOWD& WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS G IN, LLP 111 E. SEVENTH STREET Nathan Vosburg, et.al v.Fresno County, et al. HAN FORD. CA 9J 2jO Fresno County Superior Court Case No. I 7CECG04294