Ettlin Harris SLAPP Response r2b 1

Dennis Ettlin, Pro Se
27222 Paseo Lomita

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
310-795-9507 dennis@ettlin.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
SOUTHERN DIVISIONSANTA ANA

Case No. 8:14-cv-00324-DOC-(JPRx)
Dennis ETTLIN, an individual;
Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS ANTONOVICH,
KNABE, MOLINA AND
YAROSLAVSKYS

ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION TO STRIKE

vs.
Kamala Harris, an individual,
James Otero, an individual,
Otis D. Wright, II, an individual,
George H. King, an individual,
Dolly M. Gee, an individual,
Jan Levine, an individual,
Gloria Molina, an individual,
Zev Yaroslavsky, an individual,
Don Knabe, an individual,
Michael Antonovich, an individual,
United States of America,
State of California,
County of Los Angeles,
Chris Ryan Legal, Sr.
Does 5-10,
(any judge assigned to this case who
received Judicial Benefits)
Defendants

DOE #1, Derek Hunt
DOE #2, Tani Cantil-Sakauye
DOE #3, Kathleen E. O'Leary
DOE #4, Tim Donnelly

Date: May 5, 2014

Time: 8:30 AM
Ctrm: 9D (Hon. David O. Carter)
ii
Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion ii
Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
II. RELEVANT FACTS ......................................................................................... 1
III. STATUS AS PERSON OR OFFICIALS .......................................................... 2
IV. PROTECTED ACTIVITY ................................................................................. 2
V. LIKLIHOOD OF PREVAILING ...................................................................... 4
VI. EXEMPTIONS .................................................................................................. 4
A. FIRST CRITERION - EXEMPT .................................................................. 4
B. SECOND CRITERION -- EXEMPT ............................................................ 5
C. THIRD CRITERION EXEMPT ................................................................. 5
VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 6

TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-C Reserved
APPENDIX D CONTRACT BETWEEN COUNTY AND COURT
APPENDIX E SENATE PRO TEM CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 5

1
Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 1
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Supervisors anti-SLAPP motion is again frivolous and improper.
The payment of criminal bribes is not protected activity. Plaintiff will prevail.
Plaintiff meets ALL criteria for 425.17 exemption from anti-SLAPP motions.
Legislative free-speech immunity did not protect the City of Bell officials
from phantom meetings. Legislative immunity did not protect the Defendant
Supervisors after Sturgeon I. SBX2_11 does not protect Defendant Supervisors
from criminal payments to judges whose terms started in 2010, 2012 or 2014.
Legislative immunity does not protect the Defendant Supervisors from payment of
phantom wages that violate IRS and ERISA regulations. Legislative immunity will
not protect the Defendant Supervisors from the common good sense of jurors.
Defendant Supervisors motion is fully consistent with the SLAPP suits used
by billion-dollar bullies to silence their critics. Plaintiffs suit is encouraged by the
Fourth Appellate Courts Sturgeon II decision and is in the public interest.
Sturgeon himself has filed a new suit, dubbed by some as Sturgeon IV, to stop the
illegal county bribes. Plaintiffs civil rights are no less valuable than those of the
Defendants. Plaintiff gains little or nothing from this suit.
II. RELEVANT FACTS
Defendant Supervisors statement of relevant facts has nothing to do with the
SLAPP allegation. This anti-SLAPP motion was originally filed in Superior Court
to halt discovery and divert attention from the real legal issues at stake in this case.
Furthermore, the assertion that Plaintiff is relitigating prior and pending lawsuits is
not true and is unsettled by the courts. Defendant Supervisors again fail to mention
SBX2_11 or the encouragement in Sturgeon II for taxpayers to file suits like this
one. Sturgeon himself filed a new suit, Sturgeon IV, on April 1, 2014.
This improper SLAPP action is no different than Defendant Supervisors
refusal to comply with discovery rules while in state court, their improper removal
to Federal Court, or their inappropriate noticing of the dockets in the Occupy Los

2
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

Angeles cases. These four actions certainly qualify as the kind of procedural abuse
that Judge Kozinski describes in his opinions on SLAPP.

III. STATUS AS PERSON OR OFFICIALS
Plaintiffs complaint is based on the criminal actions of Defendant
Supervisors as persons. In their Motion To Dismiss, Defendant Supervisors
claim immunity as public officials for their First Amendment deliberative and
voting functions. In this Motion to Strike, Defendant Supervisors seem to
acknowledge that legislative immunity might not be enough, and admit they might
be individual persons; [I]t is well established that public officials are persons
protected by 425.16.
Plaintiff asserts those same persons are subject to RICO and civil rights
violations lawsuits. In their Reply, Defendant Supervisors will probably discover
their retroactive immunity of SBX2_11.

IV. PROTECTED ACTIVITY
Defendants do not have the free speech right to cry FIRE in a crowded
theatre. They do not have absolute immunity. There are time, place and manner
restrictions that apply. As early as 1988, County Counsel Frank Zolin
acknowledged that the payments were illegal (Plaintiffs Complaint, page A-213,
second paragraph). Failure by Defendant Harris to address these issues even in her
own defense also denies justice to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff understands the First Amendment to include the right to say
nothing. Legislative free-speech immunity did not protect the City of Bell officials
from phantom meeting payments. Legislative immunity did not protect the
Defendant Supervisors after Sturgeon I. SBX2_11 immunity does not protect
Defendant Supervisors from criminal payments to judges whose terms started in
2010, 2012 or 2014.

3
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

Plaintiff is not aware of any statements or opinions prior to this lawsuit made
in either an official capacity or personally by Defendant Supervisors on the issues
of supplemental judicial payments or their own county salaries. Plaintiff is not
aware of any public statements by Defendant Supervisors regarding the Sturgeon
cases or SBX2_11. Plaintiffs actions have not in any way impaired Defendants
protected activities.
Defendant Supervisors Motion to Dismiss argues that defendants are public
officials and the relevant facts are the Occupy Los Angeles activities. Here they
change their tune and argue the defendants are persons and the relevant facts are
budget discussions and votes.
Plaintiffs case is not built on Defendant Supervisors voting record for
budget or policy matters. References to the budget are primarily to document the
payments and how they are reflected and characterized to the public in the budget.
Plaintiffs allegation is completely consistent with the Court of Appeals focus in
Tuszynska v. Cunningham, 199 Cal. App. 4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), on the
defendants activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liability and whether
that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning. The activity in this case
is actual payment to the judges of a phantom wage, which fraudulently violates
IRS rules, government code 68206.6 and campaign finance Form 700. The
payment to Defendant Levine specifically, and indeed, ALL county judges
deprived Plaintiff of Due Process in any matter where the County has an interest.
Bribery, IRS fraud and denial of Due Process are NOT activities protected
by 425.16. Appendix D clarifies further that; the vote, the resolution and the
agreement (all protected activities) bear no relation to the actual county
implementation of Govt. Code 68206.6. Criminal activity cannot hide behind the
First Amendment or legislative immunity. Appendix E shows even the legislative
Senate leader deemed the payments criminal.

4
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

V. LIKLIHOOD OF PREVAILING
The contention by Defendant Supervisors that Plaintiff cannot prevail is
mere hollow blustering. Their only hope is that this court will not appoint counsel
for Plaintiff or that a bribed judge will rule in their favor. Since the Defendants
pay ALL the county judges, there is a good likelihood, that while in State Courts, a
biased judge or appellate justice will return the favor.
County Defendants contention might have some merit IF they had seriously
addressed Plaintiffs legal issues (the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)
analyses). The further contention that Sturgeon II is decided clearly in favor of the
Supervisors is completely false and self-serving. Plaintiff requests this Court
request a Certified Question from the Supreme Court of California to address the
constitutionality of each section of SBX2_11 and each argument of the CJP
analyses. Plaintiff will prevail on the strength of the CJP analyses.
Previous Attorneys General have also determined several times that
supplemental judicial benefits violate the constitution. Plaintiffs case against the
payments does not require a ruling from Defendant Harris. Defendant Harris,
however, is part of the RICO scheme that continues the payments for her own
personal political gain and denies due process to litigants.

VI. EXEMPTIONS
Defendant Supervisors present a self-serving and inaccurate portrayal of the
exemptions under 425.17. Their gotcha approach to the exemption discussion is
a disservice to this court. Plaintiff meets ALL three criteria in 425.17(b)(1,2,3)
and is exempt from 425.16.
A. FIRST CRITERION - EXEMPT
Plaintiffs personal relief is clearly stated (Complain 71:27). For any
awards to be placed in a charitable trust benefitting Plaintiffs children and such
non-profit organizations as he may designate. CA Family Law 3651 bias still

5
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

applies to the success of this complaint. Plaintiff benefits nothing from this suit.
Plaintiffs children are both over 21 and thus members of the public. Non-profit
organizations by definition are in the public interest.
As a Pro Se litigant, Plaintiff is not able to represent other members of the
public. However, the claims sought by Plaintiff against the Defendant Supervisors
are also available to most all members of the public who have been to California
Superior Courts on matters of family law, traffic tickets and land use issues. The
supposedly frivolous and vexatious individual suits now stalled before the biased
California Appellate are available to the general public. This court will set the
precedent for and expedite all those cases, including ones already filed by Daniel
Cooper and Anthony Locatelli. The Sturgeon IV case, state court BC541213 (filed
April 1, 2014), would be rendered moot by this case. Alternatively, the forcing
function of this court will provide a solution that addresses the criminal and
unconstitutional payments to judges.
B. SECOND CRITERION -- EXEMPT
Ending the massive violation of Due Process and IRS fraud would confer very
significant benefits on the public, both collectively and individually. The most
immediate and obvious public benefit is that stated by the Sturgeon II court in its
summary and conclusion (Complaint A-157 to A158, 8:12, 11:5, 26:9). Upholding
the California Constitutional provisions regarding judicial payments, retroactive
immunity and Due Process are clearly in the public interest.
C. THIRD CRITERION EXEMPT
Private enforcement is necessary and more fully articulated in Plaintiffs
request for appointment of counsel, Docket Item #21. Not only will no lawyer
antagonize their industry partners, the judiciary, by taking Plaintiffs case, the
Attorney General and none of the county District Attorneys will take on the judges
or the other political figures whose salaries might also be linked to a judges salary.

6
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

D
e
n
n
i
s

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

P
r
o

S
e

Defendant Supervisors presented no evidence that this lawsuit has any
significant burden on Defendant Supervisors as public officials or as persons and
thus not deterred their speech in any way. In contrast, this motion, if granted, will
greatly deter Plaintiff and other citizens from seeking redress under their First
Amendment rights. Plaintiffs resources are limited and pale in comparison to
Defendants resources.
Plaintiff understands that the Judicial Council funding Counsel for Jan
Levine has a nearly unlimited budget to support counsel McCormick for the Los
Angeles judges. Plaintiff further believes (but not yet confirmed) that Orange
County has recently and unilaterally terminated supplemental judicial payments
and therefore the Judicial Council may have retaliated and is not funding the
defense of Defendants Hunt and OLeary.

VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff seeks denial of Defendant
Supervisors anti-SLAPP Motion and denial of any legal fees and costs.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April 11, 2014, __________________________
Dennis Ettlin, Pro Se
310-795-9507
dennis@ettlin.net
!
APPENDIX
D
APPENDIX
!
APPENDIX
E
APPENDIX
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOKESMAN JIM EVANS IN
THE OFFICE OF SENATOR PRO-TEM DARYL STEINBERG
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:10 PM
To: Evans, Jim
Subject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Importance: High
Jim: thank you for the response. Due to the technical legal nature of the questions and to
protect our credibility as a news source, Full Disclosure Network prefers to credit the
legal authorities who are presenting the opinions you provided here. If you are the one
that prepared the answers to these questions and legal opinions, then we want to say
so. Are you an attorney? If not, we would like to identify what legal authority you relied
upon to provide the answers to the questions Was it the legislative counsel? The
Judicial Council staff? I think our report would have great credibility if we quote the
actual source of the opinion, in the absence of a formal opinion from the Attorney
General.
Thank you again. We will hold off till we get confirmation from you. Leslie
Hi Leslie,
The answers are from the Pro Tems office. And I am the only person
(aside from the Pro Tem himself and our press secretary) who is
authorized to speak for the Pro Tem. Thanks.
Jre
----- Original Message -----
From: Evans, Jim
To: Leslie Dutton
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Leslie, Its fine to simply call me spokesman.
As far as your latest question:
The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's no
need to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawful
that which everyone in the world thought was already legal
before the Sturgeon decision.
Jre
ONLY 2 PAGES OF 7
An enacted statute has the force of law regardless whether a
particular provision appears in a code book or not. (See e.g.
Reese v. Kizer (1988), 46 Cal.3d 996, 999-1000.)
As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill, has Senator
Steinberg's office requested a legal opinion from the Attorney
General regarding the missing immunity clause? If not, will
you request the Attorney General to for such a
determination so that the intent of this legislation is made
public?
No, such a request is unnecessary because the immunity clause
was validly contained in the legislation.
Also, attached is a copy of the California Appellate Court
decision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would be
important to ask the the Attorney General's office for
a determination (opinion) as to whether or not the
embezzlement of public funds as described in this case under
Pen. Code, 424 and any other sections of the penal code
are enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 in
Sections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and California
Judges.
The citation you provided (54 Cal.App.3d 43) corresponds to the
case of People v. Hames. The proper citation for the case of
People v. Sperl is 54 Cal.App.3d 640. Regardless, it is
unnecessary to seek an Attorney General opinion regarding
criminal liability because the legislation expressly immunizes the
government and others from prosecution under the narrow
circumstances described in Section 5 of SBX2 11.
Here are the questions regarding the background on this
Legislation. Your prompt response to this media inquiry will
be appreciated, as the answers are to be included in the
series we are currently producing SBX2 11 and the
Government Code:
1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in the
Government Code?
Uncodified language is often used when it seeks to address an
isolated and short-lived issue. The threat of litigation seeking to
impose liability relating to locally provided judicial benefits is
such an issue.
2) Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and government
officials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included in
the Government Code?
Yes.

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or
employed in the county where the service took place. My residence or business
address is
27184 Ortega Highway, Suite 204
San Juan Capistrano, CA92675

On April 11, 2014, I served a copy of the following document

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ANTONOVICH, KNABE,
MOLINA AND YAROSLAVSKYS
ANTI-SLAPP
MOTION TO STRIKE

by first class mail, on the interested parties in this action (SEE ATTACHED
SERVICE LIST FOR PARTIES), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated on the
attached service list. I deposited such envelope in the mail. According to F.R.C.P.
Rule 5(b)(2)(C), in which event service is complete upon mailing;
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 11, 2014 at Orange County, California,

________________________________
Sabrina Aziz

2
SERVICE LIST
Case No. 8:14-cv-00324-DOC-(JPRx)

Kamala Harris
Counsel: Douglas E. Baxter, Esq., Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
110 West A Street, Suite 1100 619-645-2034
San Diego, CA 92101 Email: douglas.baxter@doj.ca.gov

Jan Levine
Counsel: Kevin McCormick, Esq.
Benton, Orr, Duval, &Buckingham
39 North California Street, Post Office Box 1178 805-648-5111
Ventura CA 93001 Email: kmccormick@bentonorr.com

Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky, Don Knabe, Michael Antonovich
Counsel: Natalie Price, Esq.
Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC
2677 North Main Street Suite 370 714-479-0180
Santa Ana, CA 92705 Email: nprice@lbaclaw.com

Chris Ryan Legal, Sr.
Counsel: Pro Se
P. O. Box 94971
Pasadena, CA 91109 Authorized Email: chrislegal55@yahoo.com

Derek Hunt, Kathleen E. OLeary
Counsel: Sarah L. Overton
Cummins, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Assoicates, P.C.
3801 Univerity Avenue, Suite 560 951-276-4420
Riverside, CA 92501 Email: soverton@cmda-law.com

George King, James Otero, Dolly Gee, Otis Wright II
Counsel: Robert Ira Lester AUSA
Office of US Attorney Civil Division
300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516 213-894-2464
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: robert.lester@usdoj.gov

Tani Cantil-Sakauye
No appearance therefore cover sheet only: c/o Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 Email:

Tim Donnelly
No appearance therefore cover sheet only: c/o Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002,
Sacramento, CA 94249-0033 Email:

Ettlin Harris SLAPP Response r2b 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ettlin Harris SLAPP Response r2b 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dennis Ettlin, Pro Se

27222 Paseo Lomita

You might also like