FR S OF TH EF O

IE

ND

GB OW .C OM

arourt of Apptal
ofthe

~tatt

of oraliforuia

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

Court of Appeal Case No.: C071764 ------Case Name: Noonan et al. v. Bowen et al.

[Z]

There are no interested entities or parties to list in this Certificate per California Rules of Court, 8.208 Interested entities or parties are listed below:

D
1.
2. 3.
4.

Name of Interested Entity or Person

Nature ofInterest

5. 6.

7.
8. 9. 10.

Signature of AttorneylParty Submitting Form Nathaniel J. Oleson, Esq. Printed Name United States Justice Foundation 932 D Street, Suite 3 Ramona, California 92065

FR

Address

Party Represented: Edward Noonan - Appellant State Bar No.: 276695 -~-----

IE

ND

~L

OF

TH EF

OG BO W .C OM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION A. B. C. D. II. Nature of Action Order Appealed Relief Requested Statement of Appealability

BO W .C

STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. B. Procedural History Statement of Facts

EF OG

III. IV.

STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT A.

TH

IE ND

B.

EC 6901 is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it prevents the Secretary of State from fulfilling his or her duties as the Chief Elections Officer of California

OF

Petitioners did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate under CCP 1085

V.

CONCLUSION

FR

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

OM
ii 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 9 10 10 17 20 21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 962 Banks v. Housing Authority ofCity and County ofSan Francisco, (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 1 Beckv. Wecht, (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 289 City ofDinuba v. County ofTulare, (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 859 Cleaver v. Jordan, (1968) 393 U.S. 810

BO W

.C
18 10 10 15 18 '. 9 19 9, 10 9 3

Corbell v. Superior Court, (2002) 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 Farm Raised Salmon Cases, (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 1077

Hollander v. McCain, (D.N.H. 2008) 566 F.Supp.2d 63 Pollack v. Lytle, (1981) 120Cal.App.3d931 Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26

FR

IE

San Joaquin County Dept. ofChild Support Services v. Winn, (2008) 163 Cal.AppAth 296

ND

OF

TH EF

11

OG

OM
10

CASES

CONSTITUTIONS

STATUTES California Code of Civil Procedure 472 California Code of Civil Procedure 904.1(a)(1) California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 California Elections Code 10 California Elections Code 6901

.C

BO W

California Elections Code 13314(a)(1) California Government Code 12172

OG

TH EF

California Government Code 12172.5

FR

IE

ND

OF

111

OM
4 2 2, 17, 19 6, 11

United States Constitution, Article 2, 1

7, 16, 19

passim
19 11, 20 6, 11

I.

A.

Nature of Action

lower court's judgment of dismissal of the FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND

NOONAN, PAMELA BARNETT ("BARNETT"), SHARON CHICKERING ("CHICKERING"), GEORGE MILLER ("MILLER"), TONY DOLZ ("DOLZ"), NEIL TURNER ("TURNER"), and GARY WILMOT ("WILMOT") (collectively

court's erroneous sustaining of demurrers filed by Respondents

OBAMA II ("OBAMA"), and OBAMA FOR AMERICA

FR

IE

(CALIFORNIA) ("OFAC") (collectively referred to as "RESPONDENTS").

ND

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, BARACK HUSSEIN

DEBRA BOWEN ("BOWEN") individually and officially as

OF

referred to as "PETITIONERS"), which resulted from the lower

TH EF
1

OG

RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING ("FAP"), filed by Petitioners

BO W

NOONAN ("NOONAN"). This appeal is brought as a result of the

.C

This opening brief is filed on behalf of Appellant EDWARD C.

OM

INTRODUCTION

The sustaining of RESPONDENTS' demurrers was in error

did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for issuance of

B.

Order Appealed

PETITIONERS appeal the lower court's judgment of dismissal,

demurrers on May 25, 2012 (Appellants' Appendix at Volume II, page 409 ("AA 2:409")).

C.

Relief Requested

NOONAN respectfully requests that this Court reverse the

RESPONDENTS' Demurrers and remand the case to the lower court

to provide PETITIONERS leave to amend.

FR

IE

D.

a judgment" other than an "interlocutory judgment." Here, NOONAN

ND

answer FAP or, in the alternative, with instructions for the lower court

Statement of Appealability
CCP 904. 1(a)(1), provides that an appeal may be taken "from

with instructions for the lower court to order RESPONDENTS to

OF

lower court's judgment of dismissal following its order Sustaining

TH EF OG
2

entered on July 5, 2012, after it sustained RESPONDENTS'

BO W

1085, as well as other ancillary relief.

.C

a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP")

OM

because, contrary to the lower court's ruling, PETITIONERS, in FAP,

appeals the lower court's July 5, 2012, judgment of dismissal, after

dismissal leaves no further matters for the lower court to decide regarding FAP, the judgment is an appealable final judgment.

the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been

Winn (App. 3 Dist. 2008) 163 Cal.AppAth 296, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 470. This matter was timely appealed on August 2,2012 (AA 2:413).

A.

Procedural History

sustaining of RESPONDENTS' demurrers (AA 2:409).

FR

IE

PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE and RESTRAINT OF FUND RAISING ("PETITION"), naming the RESPONDENTS.

ND

of dismissal of PETITIONERS' FAP following the lower court's

On January 6, 2012, PETITIONERS filed a PETITION FOR A

This appeal is brought as a result of the lower court's judgment

OF

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

TH EF
II.

OG

determined." San Joaquin County Dept. ofChild Support Services v.

BO W

"A judgment is 'final' for purposes of appeal when it terminates

.C

OM

sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers (AA 2:409). Because the

On February 16,2012, RESPONDENTS filed demurrers to

20,2012 (AA 1:1; 1:25). On March 16,2012, BARNETT appeared

scheduled for April 20, 2012, be advanced to before March 29,2012. On March 29,2012, BOWEN was to issue a Certified List of

Candidates for the California Presidential Primary, which was set to

accommodate BARNETT's request, and the lower court rescheduled the hearing on the demurrers for March 23,2012 (AA 1:91). On March 22,2012, prior to the issuance of the lower court's tentative ruling on RESPONDENTS' demurrers, PETITIONERS filed

the March 23, 2012, hearing pursuant to CCP 472 (AA 2:264).

FR

IE ND

and the hearing on the demurrers was scheduled for May 25, 2012 (AA 2:265; 288). On May 14,2012, NOONAN filed a substitution of

attorney with the court, identifying attorney GARY G. KREEP, of the UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION, as his attorney, and he also timely filed his Opposition to RESPONDENTS' demurrers

On April 23, 2012, RESPONDENTS filed demurrers to FAP,

OF

FAP (AA 1:93). Based on the filing ofFAP, the lower court vacated

TH

EF OG
4

take place on June 5, 2012 (AA 1:40). RESPONDENTS agreed to

BO W .C

ex parte to request, in part, that the hearing on the demurrers,

OM

PETITION, and a hearing on the demurrers was scheduled for April

("OPPOSITION") (AA 2:328). On May 21,2012, BARNETT filed

believed that then-attorney Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation, would represent her in the case below (AA 2:386). On

have offered to represent Petitioner Pamela Barnett in the past, when I presented her with a prepared Substitution of Attorney form, in

attorney in this matter, Ms. Barnett refused to sign the Substitution of Attorney form" (AA 2:396).

The hearing on RESPONDENTS' demurrers took place on May 25, 2012, and after oral arguments, the lower court affirmed its

to amend (AA 2:391). On July 5, 2012, the lower court entered its

appeal followed (AA 2:413).

FR

IE

B.

America who resides in the state of California and was the declared

ND

entered a judgment dismissing FAP in its entirety (AA 2:398). This

Statement of Facts

NOONAN is a natural-born citizen of the United States of

Order Sustaining Demurrers to FAP without leave to amend, and it

OF

tentative ruling, sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers without leave

TH EF
5

OG

person, on March 27,2012, which would substitute myself in as her

BO W

February 25, 2012, Mr. Kreep filed a declaration stating, "although I

.C

OM

an opposition to RESPONDENTS' demurrers and stated that she

candidate for office of the President of the United States for the

1:9). NOONAN was registered to vote in the 2012 election cycle (AA

(AA2:329).

The other Petitioners are natural persons who were residents of

were eligible California electors (AA 1:9). As eligible California electors, PETITIONERS had an interest in all Presidential candidates being verified as having the minimum requirements of eligibility prior to the placement of the candidates' names on the ballot for the

BOWEN is a resident of California, and she was named as a

Elections Code ("EC") 10, BOWEN is the Chief Elections Officer

FR

IE

of the State of California, and she has the powers and duties specified in Section 12172.5 of the Government Code of California (AA 2:330).

ND

of State for the State of California (AA 2:330). Pursuant to California

respondent, both individually, and in her official capacity as Secretary

OF

Primary Election (AA 1:93).

TH EF
6

OG

California, were registered to vote in the 2012 election cycle, and

BO W

had an interest in having a fair competition for winning the Presidency

.C

1:93). As a candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election, NOONAN

OM

American Independent Party in the 2012 Presidential Election (AA

OBAMA was a declared Democratic Party candidate in

President of the United States for the 2012 Presidential Election (AA

slate in the 2012 election cycle in California to re-elect OBAMA to the office of the President of the United States (AA 1:93).

June 5, 2012, widespread and substantial doubts existed, and continue to exist, about whether OBAMA was eligible to be a candidate for President of the United States, or to hold said office, because he is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the United

Because OBAMA's eligibility to be a candidate for President of

injunction (AA 1:93). PETITIONERS sought an order from the lower

FR

IE

court enjoining BOWEN, as California Secretary of State, from

placing the names of Presidential candidates who failed to prove their eligibility to hold office on the 2012 California Presidential Primary

ND

petitioned the lower court for the issuance of a writ of mandate and an

the United States has never been officially verified, PETITIONERS

OF

States Constitution (AA 1:93).

TH EF OG
7

Prior to the Democratic Party Presidential Primary Election on

BO W

OFAC was an ad hoc entity created solely to form an Elector

.C

1:93).

OM

California for formation of an Elector slate for the office of the

election ballot (AA 1:93). PETITIONERS also requested that the

of the President of the United States to provide sufficient proof of eligibility prior to placing their names on the ballot (AA 1:93).

OBAMA from being placed on the Democratic Party California Presidential Primary election ballot until he provided evidence that he

were citizens of the United States, and until OBAMA released microfilm from his travels between August 1, 1961, and August 7, 1961 (AA 1:93). Lastly, FAP asked the lower court to find EC 6901, which governs the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to

unenforceable (AA 1:93).

demurrers argued that FAP failed to state facts sufficient to constitute

FR

IE

a cause of action that could support the relief requested in FAP (AA 2:265; 288). The lower Court agreed with RESPONDENTS,

ND

and OFAC each filed a separate demurrer (AA 2:288). Both

BOWEN filed a demurrer to FAP (AA 2:265), and OBAMA

OF

the ballot for the General Election, to be unconstitutional and

TH EF OG
8

is a "natural-born Citizen" born in the United States to parents who

BO W

Furthermore, FAP asked the lower court for an order barring

.C

OM

lower court mandate that BOWEN require all candidates for the office

sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, and dismissed the

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

sustained without leave to amend, the reviewing Court applies an independent review standard, giving the petition a reasonable

properly pleaded. Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 1077, 1089 n. 10. This is because the demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings; it does not test the truth of the petition's allegations or their accuracy, but admits the truth of all material

Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 47.

cause of action under any possible legal theory. For such purposes, all

FR

IE

material facts pleaded in the complaint, and those that arise by reasonable implication, must be considered true. Pollack v. Lytle

ND

demurrer, the issue is whether PETITIONERS stated, or could state, a

Because this appeal arose from the lower court's sustaining a

OF

factual allegations and the petitioners' ability to prove them.

TH EF OG
9

interpretation, and treating the demurrer as admitting all material facts

BO W

On appeal from a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer is

.C

OM

case in its entirety (AA 2:409).

(1981) 120 CA3d 931,936, fn. 2 (disapproved on other grounds as

The judgment must be reversed if the Petitioners stated a cause

2 Cal. 4th 962, 966-967. It is also reversible error, in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, if the Petitioners show, either in the

defect identified by the Respondent can be cured by amendment. City

a/Dinuba v. County a/Tulare (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 859, 865. IV.

unenforceable because the Secretary of State does not have a legal

FR

IE

duty to determine the eligibility of candidates for President of the

United States before their names may be placed on the ballot (AA 2:391). The code states the following:

ND

court stated that EC 6901 is not unconstitutional and is not

In its order sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers, the lower

OF

A.

EC 6901 is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it prevents the Secretary of State from fulfilling his or her duties as the Chief Elections Officer of California

TH EF OG
ARGUMENT
10

trial court or on appeal, that there is a reasonable possibility that any

BO W

attached to the cause of action. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992)

.C

of action under any possible legal theory, regardless of the label

OM

stated in Beck v. Wecht (2002) 28 C4th 289, 298).

The lower court erred in ruling that the EC 6901 is not unconstitutional because it is wholly inconsistent with Article II of the

with the several duties and requirements of the Secretary of State provided by the California Government Code, which includes the duty to determine candidates' eligibility for holding various offices. Pursuant to California EC 10, BOWEN is the Chief Elections

powers and duties specified in 12172.5 of the Government Code of

of the office of the Secretary of State to ensure that California's

FR

IE

election laws are followed (Gov. Code 12172), investigate election fraud (Id.), and to advise candidates and local elections officials on

the qualifications and requirements for running for office (Id.).

ND

(http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/about-the-agency.htm) lists the duties

California. The Secretary of State's website

OF

Officer of the State of California, and in that position, she has the

TH EF
11

OG

United States Constitution. Furthermore, EC 6901 is inconsistent

BO W

Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President ofthe United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election. (Elections Code 6901)

.C

OM

In order to fulfill the duty to advise candidates, the Secretary of

qualifications and requirements for each elected position. Documents

and Lieutenant Governor; Secretary of State, Controller, and

Treasurer; Attorney General; Insurance Commissioner; Member of

Assembly; United States Senator; United States Representative in Congress; and President of the United States.

The lower court's ruling that EC 6901 is not unconstitutional results in a troubling situation where the Secretary of State is required

for the position, with one exception: those candidates that have been

documentation proving their eligibility for the office of President.

FR

IE

end up with absurd and ridiculous results. For example, if the

Republican Party were to nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger, under

ND

political party are not required to present to the Secretary of State any

An application ofEC 6901, pursuant to the court's ruling, can

selected for the office of President of the United States by a national

OF

to verify that every candidate for the above-listed positions is eligible

TH EF OG
12

the State Board of Equalization; State Senator and Member of the

BO W

are provided for all State and Federal offices: including the Governor

.C

that list the qualifications and requirements for each elected position

OM

State provides several documents with information concerning the

EC 6901, the Secretary of State would be forced to put him on the

well known as not being a natural born citizen of the United States.

as candidate for President. Pursuant to the lower court's ruling, if Ms. Rand were selected to be President by a national political party, the

ballot, even though Ms. Rand died in 1982. Again, if the Democratic Party were to nominate Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, then the Secretary of State would be forced to put Mr. Brown on the ballot, despite the fact that he is a citizen of Great Britain.

EC 6901 and the eligibility requirements for President under the

therefore, ought to be excluded from the ballot. Yet, under EC

FR

IE

6901, the Secretary of State has no discretion or authority to exclude

those obviously ineligible candidates from the ballot. In fact, Ee 6901 forces the Secretary of State to disregard his or her duties as

ND

clearly ineligible to hold office as President of the United States and,

United States Constitution. Each individual in the examples above is

OF

The foregoing examples illustrate the inconsistencies between

TH EF
13

OG

Secretary of State would have no option other than to put her on the

BO W

6901 would be if the Libertarian Party were to nominate Ayn Rand

.C

Another example of an absurd result from the application ofEC

OM

ballot for the election, despite the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is

Chief Elections Official in the State of California with regard to the

and action from the Secretary of State, absurd results are a real

as the primary goal of the political parties is to promote and elect their candidates to office.

and unenforceable is due to its historically discriminatory and arbitrary application by the Secretary of State. Throughout California's past, California's Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents,

respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were, indeed,

the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of

FR

IE

the United States. The California Secretary of State at the time, Frank Jordon, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he would be only 34 years old at the time of the general election, one

ND

For example, in 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted

eligible.

OF

verifying that the various candidates that were submitted by the

TH EF OG
14

Another reason that California EC 6901 is unconstitutional

BO W

with ensuring that all of the various elections laws are complied with,

.C

possibility, and political parties are not, and should not be, trusted

OM

most important elected office in the United States. Without oversight

year shy of the Constitutional requirement of a candidate being at

administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the

United States, which affirmed the actions of the Secretary of State by denying review ofMr. Cleaver's removal from the ballot. Cleaver v.

Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the Presidential primary. When California's Secretary of State at the time, Daniel M. Bums, checked his eligibility for office, it was found that Mr. Holmes was not

The removal of ineligible candidates is not a relic of historical

In 2012, Peta Lindsay was selected by the Peace and Freedom Party to

FR

IE

be their Presidential candidate on the ballot for the 2012 California

Primary Election. BOWEN, however, rejected Ms. Lindsay and refused to place her name on the ballot because she was only 27 years

ND

exercised her power to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot.

actions by California Secretaries of State, and BOWEN has recently

OF

eligible, and his name was removed from the ballot.

TH EF OG
15

Jordan (1968) 393 U.S. 810,89 S.Ct. 43.

BO W

Court of the State of California, and later to the Supreme Court of the

.C

ballot. Mr. Cleaver challenged Mr. Jordan's decision to the Supreme

OM

least 35 years of age in order to be on the ballot. Using his

old, which did not satisfy the U.S. Constitution's, Article 2, Section 1

least 35 years of age.

BOWEN, have historically used their discretion to fulfill their duties under the U.S. Constitution, the Government Code, and the Elections Code, by requiring that candidates must meet the various eligibility

implies that Secretaries of States are free to decide when and how they use their discretion in verifying candidates' eligibility. Such unfettered discretion is unconstitutional. It gives the Secretary of State the power to arbitrarily decide whether to require proof of a particular

which is what happened in the historical examples previously

FR

IE ND

As EC 6901 conflicts with the requirements of the U.S.

Constitution and is inconsistent with the duties of the Secretary of State provided by the California Elections Code and the California

Government Code, EC 6901 is unconstitutional, and unenforceable.

Furthermore, its historically arbitrary and inconsistent application is

discussed.

OF

candidate's eligibility before placing the candidate on the ballot,

TH

EF OG
16

requirements before appearing on the ballots, the lower Court's ruling

BO W .C

Despite the fact that California's Secretaries of States, including

OM

requirement that candidates for President of the United States be at

discriminatory, in that the Secretary of State has wide discretion in

foregoing, EC 6901 is unconstitutional and unenforceable and, as

such, the lower court erred in sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers.

B.

Petitioners did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate under CCP 1085
In its order sustaining RESPONDENTS' demurrers, the lower

court stated that FAP fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (AA 2:391). The lower court's sustaining of

RESPONDENTS' demurrers was in error because PETITIONERS, in FAP and their Oppositions to RESPONDENTS' demurrers, stated facts sufficient to prove that BOWEN has "a duty resulting from an

those duties.

the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty

FR

IE

resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the

ND

court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel

Under CCP 1085, "[a] writ of mandate may be issued by any

OF

office," and that the court should have compelled the performance of

TH EF
17

OG BO W .C OM

determining who to require proof of eligibility from. Because of the

party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by

Although courts often deny relief for a writ of mandamus, a

Superior Court (App. 1 Dist. 2002) 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 101, 101 Cal.AppAth 649, review denied. Furthermore, a court is not bound by

issuance of a writ of mandamus, and a writ will issue against a city, other public body, or officer wherever law and justice so require. Banks v. Housing Authority ofCity and County ofSan Francisco (App. 1 Dist. 1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 1,260 P.2d 668, certiorari denied

As NOONAN argued before the lower court, California State

Elections Code states that "[a]n elector may seek a writ of mandate

FR

IE

alleging that an error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in

the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, a ballot, sample ballot,

ND

for errors in the placing of a name on the ballot (AA 2:328). The

law provides that any voter in California may seek a writ of mandate

OF

74 S.Ct. 784, 347 U.S. 974.

TH EF OG
18

precedent in determining facts and circumstances compelling the

BO W

great public importance and must be resolved promptly. Corbell v.

.C

writ of mandate should not be denied when the issues presented are of

OM

such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person."

voter pamphlet, or other official matter, or that any neglect of duty has

Additionally, the U.S. District Court has held, "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an

allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing in the

election." Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008).

As such, NOONAN, as a candidate for President in the 2012

election cycle, and as a California voter who was concerned that one

or more unverified candidates for President of the United States would be included on the California primary ballot, had a legitimate interest in ensuring that all candidates were eligible to run for and serve as

and legitimate grounds to petition the lower court for a writ of

of mandate directing BOWEN to fulfill her duties as Secretary of

FR

IE

State. The unambiguous language of U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, and the Elections Code, read along with the California

Government Code, clearly define BOWEN's duties as Secretary of

ND

Pursuant to CCP 1085, PETITIONERS are entitled to a writ

mandate.

OF

President. Because of the foregoing, NOONAN had both standing,

TH EF
19

OG BO W .C OM

occurred, or is about to occur." (EC 13314(a)(1)).

State, including duties as the Chief Elections Officer for California, to

12172), to investigate election fraud (Id.), and to advise candidates

and local elections officials on the qualifications and requirements for

duties as Secretary of State, the lower court should have issued a writ of mandate to compel BOWEN to fulfill her duties. As such, the

be reversed.

CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, NOONAN respectfully requests that this

RESPONDENTS' Demurrers and remand the case to the lower court

IE ND

alternative, with instructions to provide PETITIONERS leave to amend.

DATED: April 11,2013

with instructions to order RESPONDENTS to answer FAP or, in the

OF

Court reverse the lower court's judgment of dismissal after Sustaining

TH

FR

EF
20

v.

OG

court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS ' demurrers should

Respectfully submitted,

NATHANIEL 1. OLESON Attorney for NOONAN

~.tL-

BO

running for office (Id.). Because BOWEN refused to comply with her

.C OM

ensure that California's election laws are followed (Gov. Code

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

8.204(c)(l) or 8.504(d)(l) of the California Rules of Court, the

enclosed Brief of Appellant is produced using 13-point or greater

Roman type, including footnotes, and contains 3,865 words, which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of court. Counsel

relies on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this

DATED: April 11, 2013

FR I

EN

DS

OF

TH

EF
21

OG

brief.

Respectfully submitted,

NATHANIEL J. OLESON Attorney for NOONAN

~~

BO

.C OM

Counsel of Record hereby certifies that pursuant to Rule

State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) )

Proof of Service by: .{ US Postal Service Federal Express

I, Maurice Harrington , declare that I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and my business address is: 354 South Spring St., Suite 610, Los Angeles, California 90013.
On 4/12/2013 upon:

declarant served the within: Brief of Appellant

4

Copies

FedEx'; USPS

To Each on Attached Service List

Copies

FedEx

USPS

Electronically Submitted to the CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Third Appellate District, per Rule 8.70

I further declare that this same day the original and copies haslhave been hand delivered for filing OR the original and 4 copies haslhave been filed by .; third party commercial carrier for next business day delivery to:
Clerk of the Court CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Third Appellate District 621 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814-4719

FR

I ~eclare

IE

urnalty
c:::-

SIgnature:

ND

the addressees) designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing the number of copies indicated above, of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in a Post Office Mail Depository, under the exclusive custody and care ofthe United States Postal Service, within the State of California, or properly addressed wrapper in an Federal Express Official Depository, under the exclusive custody and care of Federal Express, within the State of California

of p~foregoing is true and correct:

~

OF

TH EF

OG BO W .C OM
Copies FedEx'; USPS
Office of the Clerk SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102-4797

Copies

FedEx

USPS

SERVICE LIST

Pamela Barnett 2230 Sunset Boulevard Suite 340-160 Rocklin, California 95765
Appellant In Pro Per

Anthony R. Hald III, Esq. OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, California 94244-2550

Fredric D. Woocher, Esq. STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP 10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024
Attorney for Respondents, Barack Hussein Obama IL as President et al.

Attorneyfor Respondent, Debra Bowen Clerk for the Hon. Michael P. Kenny SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse 720 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Trial Court Judge

FR

IE

ND

OF

TH EF

OG BO W .C OM