UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION GARY G. KREEP (CA SBN 066482) NATHANIEL J.

OLESON (SBN #276695) 932 "D" Street, Suite 2 Ramona, California 92065 Tel: (760) 787-9907 Fax:(760)788-6414 Attomeys for Petitioners, John Albert Dunimett, Jr., Gil Houston, Larry Lakamp, Milo L. Johnson, Joe Ott, Markham Robinson, and the Constitution Party SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO JOHN ALBERT DUMMETT, JR.; MARKHAM ROBINSON, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the State Central Committee of the Atnerican Independent Party of California; THE CONSTITUTION PARTY; GIL HOUSTON; LARRY LAKAMP; MILO L JOHNSON; and JOE OTT; Petitioners, Civil Action No.: 3^-

MY 2 1 21 A 02
MTURCELT
DtPUTY CLERK

6 7 8 9
10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

26 12,-

^OOOiO'^i

DECLARATION OF GARY G. KREEP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

DATE: S" 12-

TIME: DEPT: CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN, in her official capacity; Respondents.

I, GARY G. KREEP, hereby declare as follows:

1. That I am one of the attorneys for John Albert Dummett, Jr., Gil Houston, Larry Lakamp, Milo L Johnson, Joe Ott, Markham Robinson, and the Constitution Party, Petitioners herein; that 1 am admitted to practice before all Courts of this State, and that, if called upon to do so, 1 could, and vi'ould, cotnpelently testify as follows:

24 25

2. That PETITIONERS were surprised by the reassignment because they had received no nolice until Friday, April 6, 2012, when Respondent Debra Bowen (hereinafter referred to as "BOWEN") served

DECLARATION OF GARY G. KREEP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

by mail her support forthe notice of related cases, which afforded PETITIONERS no opportunity to respond since the order was issued on Monday, April 9, 2012; that a copy of tlie support for tlie notice of related cases is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A," and m dQ a part hereof; a. 3. That PETITIONERS were afforded no meaningful opportunity to oppose or otherwise respond to the Notice of Related Cases filed in Nootian v. Bowen; 4. That Barack Obama ("OBAMA)'s attomey in Noonan v. .Sovt'en, on March 21, 2012, threatened tne with monetaiy and otiier sanctions for my potential involvement in that case', tliat a copy of the follow-up letter to the threat is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B," and made a part hereof; 5. That because OBAMA is not a party in the Dummett v. Bowen case, the efforts by his attomey to cause this case to be reassigned to the same Judge that is hearing Noonan v. Bowen would seem to have no purpose other tlian to try to influence a lawsuit that OBAMA is not a party lo, and/or to attempt to harass me, both of which are improper purposes; 6. That, due to the tlireats made against me, PETITIONERS believe that now the next motion filed by OBAMA will be to consolidate the cases to further confuse the issues raised. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15"' day of May, 2012, at Ramona, G^alifornia.

DECLARATION OF GARY G. KREEP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

EXHIBIT A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

TAMAR PACHTER

Supervising Deputy Altorney General ANTHONY R. HAKL (SBNl 97335) PAUL STEIN (SBN 184956) Deputy Attorneys General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415)703-5740 Fax: (415) 703-1234 E-mail: Paul.Stein@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondent Office of Secretary of State SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

JOHN ALBERT DUMMET, JR. ET AL.,

CaseNo. 34-2012-80001091

v. SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN,

Plaintiff, RESPONSE OF SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Date: Time; Dept: 29 Judge: Hon. Tim M. Frawley Respondent. Trial Date: None set Action Filed: March 20, 2012

Respondent California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, in her official capacity (Secretary of State) hereby responds to the Notice of Related case filed in this action by President Barack Obama and Obama for America. (Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.300(g).)' The Secretary of State agrees that the instant case is "related" within the meaning of the California Rules of Court to both: (1) Edward C. Noonan et al. v. Debra Bowen et al. (Sacramento Superior Court, No. 342012-80001048) (Noonan); and (2) Keyes et ai v. Bowen et al. (Sacramento Superior Court, No. ' The Secretary of State was served with the Notice on April 2, 2012, Therefore, this response is timely filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(g).) I Response to Notice of Related C s ae Dummett et al. v. Bowen (34-2012-80001091)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34-2008-80000096) (Keyes), which resulted in ajudgment of dismissal. (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647,) The foregoing cases may also be "related" to Robinson v. Bowen (N.D.Cal. 2008) 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, a federal court action which also resulted in a dismissal. (^ee Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.300(b).) The two pending cases, Dummett and Noonan, raise identical legal issues: (1) whether the California Secretary of State has a duty to investigate the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates before placing their names on the ballot; and (2) whetiier Elections Code 6901 is preempted by article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. There is also significant overlap among the paities to Noonan and Dummett. The Secretary of State is a respondent in both actions (the only respondent in Dummett). Named plaintiffs in both actions are alleged to be registered voters, and others are alleged to be presidential candidates. Department 31, in which Noonan is pending, has already spent considerable time on the legal issues involved and is familiar with many of tlie parties. Noonan was :filed January 6, 2012, and the respondents each demurred to the petition. After completion of briefing on the demurrers, and shortly before Department 31 was due to post its tentative ruling, the Noonan plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Moreover, Department 31 previously adjudicated a similar petition for writ of mandate in Keyes. Keyes, like Dummett and Noonan, involved a challenge by so-called "birthers" arguing that the Secretary of State has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications and eligibility of presidential candidates before placing their names on the ballot. Judge Keimy rejected the argument and entered ajudgment of dismissal, which was affirmed on appeal. (Keyes v. Bowen, ^^/pr^^. 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 658-661.) One of tlie named plaintiffs in the instant case, Mai'kham Robinson, was a nained plaintiff in ATej^ej, as well. (Id. at p. 651.) Robinson also sued (unsuccessfully) the Secretary of State in Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, a case "very similar" to Keyes. (Keyes, 189 Cal.App.4di at p. 661.) Of the two petitions cuiTently pending in this Court, Noonan was filed first in time. Because Department 31 has already devoted significant time to the issues involved in both
2 Response to Notice of Related Case Dummett et al. v. Bowen (34-2012-80001091)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Noonan and Dummett, and is familiar with the parties, the two cases should be related to each other and assigned to Department 31 to avoid a waste ofjudicial and party resources. Dated: April 3, 2012 Respectfiilly Submitted,
KAMALA D . HARRIS

Attorney General of Califomia

TAMAR PACHTER

Supervising Deputy Attomey General

PAUL STEIN

Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent Office ofSecretary of State

SA2012105483 20580969.doc

Response to Notice of Related Case Dummett et al. v. Bou'c/r (34-2012-80001091)

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: No.: I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. 1 am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attomey General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office ofthe Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On April 4.2012.1 served the attached RESPONSE OF SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attomey General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102-7004, addressed as follows: Gary G. Kreep Nathaniel J. Oleson United States Justice Foundation 932 "D" Street, Suite 2Ramona, CA 92065 Edward Noonan 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Pamela Bamett 1713 n t h Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Sharon Chickering 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 George Miller 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Tony Dolz 1713 n t h Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Neil Turner 1713 11th Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Gary Wilmott 1713 n t h Avenue Olivehurst, CA 95961 Frederic D. Woocher Strumwasser & Woocher LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90024 John Albert Dummet, Jr., et al. v. Secretary of State Bowen 34-2012-800001091

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 4, 2012, at San Francisco, California, A. Bermudez Declarant
5A20l2IOS<t]

- "^JUyr^jQrA^ Signature/A

2058227').doc

STATE O F C A L I F O R N I A " ^ " ^ ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 4 5 5 G O L D E N G A T E A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 10OO S A N F R A N C I S C O , CA 94102-7004

Gary G. Kreep
Nathaniel J. Oleson United States Justice Foundation 932 "D" Street, Suite 2 Ramona, CA 92065

EXHIBIT B

Gmail - Noonan. et al, v. Bowen. et al

hitps://n-iall.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=bSadb074la&vie\v=pt&q'='gaiy...

Nathaniel Oleson <njoleson@gmail.com>

L-,t'.{Kylc

Noonan, et al, v. Bowen, et al

5 messages Gary Kreep <usjf@usjf.net> To: twoocher@strumwooch.com Cc: Nathaniel Oleson <njolesDn@gmail.com>, Elliot Wilson <elliotwilson@gmail.com> Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Mr. Woocher,

To confirm our telephone conversation of earlier this aftemoon, I telephoned you to advise you that I had been contacted by the Petitioners in the above referenced matter to represent them therein, and that it was my intention to do so. I asked you if you would agree to continue the demurrer hearing to the originally scheduled 4/20/12 hearing date from the currently scheduled advanced date of this Friday, and you said that, once I had formally become a part of the case, you would not agree to do so.

Despite our previous mutually courteous and professional relationship throughout our LAUSD and Keyes v. Bowen litigations, you thereupon made threats of bringing monetary sanctions and other actions against me for daring to become Involved In this case. It saddens me that you would do so, and thereby attempt to make this a personal matter between you and, instead of treating this case as any other, and In a professional manner. As I stated to you, how you handle this case, and how you deal with me, is up to you, but I would suggest that you reconsider your personal threats against me. 1 take on Constitutional cases ali over the country, and I was recently co-counsel on an amicus brief that turned the case around in U, S. v. Anloine Jones, which was a great USSC victory In defense ofthe 4*^ Amendment. I look on fhis case as another Constitutional issue, although it is a very important one, as Justice Berzon, during my 5/2/11 oral argument before the Q"^ Circuit In Drake v. Obama, agreed. I bare no personal animosity against you or your client(s) in this case, and it is sad that you, however, cannot say the same aboul me and my fuiure clients herein.

In His name,

Gary G. Kreep Executive Director United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street, Suite 3 Ramona, Califomia, 92065 1-760-788-6624 1-760-788-6414 usjf@usjf.net www.usjf.net

of 6

5/15/2012 3:40 PM

Gmail - Noonan. et al, v. Bowen, et al

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=b8adb074l a&view=pt(S:q=gary...

Fredric Woocher <fwoocher@strumwooch.com> To: Gary Kreep <usjf@usjf.net> Cc: Nathaniel Oleson <njoleson@gmall.com>, Elliot Wilson <elllotwilson@gmall.com> Dear Mr. Kreep:

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I do not know the persons to whom you cc'd your email to me, nor why you did so. But I wish to make sure that they and you - have an accurate recounting of our conversation from earlier this afternoon. I do not take issue with the first paragraph of your characterization of our conversation. I did tell you that since you were not counsel in the case, I could not reach any agreement with you in the case, but that if and when you did have authority to discuss the case v/lth me, I would not agree to continue the hearing that Is scheduled for Friday at this lale date. Your characterization of our conversation in the second paragraph of your email is not accurate, I did not make any "personal threats" against you, nor do I bare any "personal animosity" against you or your dents, and I gave no such indication in our conversation. And I did not "ma[k]e threats of bringing monetary sanctions and other actions against [you] for daring to become involved in this case." I advised you that I considered the case to be legally frivolous, and when you responded that you did not file the case, I further advised you lhat an attorney who enters a frivolous case In the middle of litigation and continues to pursue it can be just as liable for sanctions as the persons who filed the case originally, I certainly would not want you to feel that you were "blind-sided" if someone were to laler make an argument for sanctions against you, and you had been under the mistaken belief that sanctions could only apply to the person or persons who had originally filed a frivolous action. I can assure you, as you acknowledge has been the case in Ihe past, that I intend to continue to treat you with all of the professional courtesy that you or any other lawyer with your credentials, reputation, and litigation history deserves. I am also pleased lo read lhat you have no personal animosity against my client. I do wish that you would therefore show him and his office the respect that they deserve by referring to him as "President Obama" in your future communications vjith me. Fredric D. Woocher Strumv;asser & Woocher LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Sle. 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90024 fv/oocher@strumv/ooch.com (310) 576-1233

From: Gary Kreep [mailto:usjf@usjf.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:53 PM To: Fredric Woocher Cc: 'Nathaniel Oleson'; 'Elliot Wilson' Subject: Noonan, et al, v. Bowen, et al
{Quoted text liidden]

Gary Kreep <usjf@usjf.nel> To: Fredric Woocher <fwoocher@strumwooch.com>

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Cc: Nathaniel Oleson <njoleson@gmail.com>, Elliot Wilson <elliotwilson@gmall.com>

2 of 6

5/15/2012 3:40 PM

Gmail -Noonan, cl al, v. Bowen, eial

hUps://iTiail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=b8adb0741a,&vievv=pi&q=gary..

Mr. Woocher,

The 2 individuals "cc'd" above, and belov;, are USJF staff. I copy them on all e-mails conceming USJF projects, since they work on them and need to be current on all situations in all USJF cases.

With all due respecl, I disagree with your third paragraph below. During our telephone conversation, you said that you had "gone easy' on me during Ihe Keyes v. Bowen litigation, and would not do so ("go easy" on me) in this case. You specifically talked about seeking "sanctions" againsl me. Since your firm similariy threatened me in Keyes v. Bowen, I will not feel "blindsided," when you try ll this time. It is still a threat, no matter how you try to characterize it. Your threatening to target me personally, and any future actions in pursuance thereof, in this case are, I believe, inappropriate, and will only make a difficult litigation even more difficult. Further, your taking such actions will only drive up your firm's attorney fees charged to your client(s).

Despite your comments over the telephone, I am NOT paid for working on any of USJF's cases. I receive a set salary per year from USJF, whether I work on any cases or not. I don't know what you read on the intemet, but, as you can possibly understand, there are a lot of factually false attacks on me on the internet, many of them put there by supporters of your client, as a result of my Involvement in legal challenges to his eligibility to serve as President.

In any event, as I slated on the telephone, despite your threats, I will continue to treat you with professionalism and courtesy

In His name,

Gary G. Kreep Executive Director United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street, Suite 3 Ramona, California, 92065 1-760-788-6624 1-760-788-6414 usjf@usjf.net wv/w.usjf.net

jofb

5/15/2012 3:40 PM