noonan v bowen appeal - reply brief of appellant barnett 131202

8/13/2019 Noonan v Bowen APPEAL - Reply Brief of Appellant Barnett 131202

1/59


2/59

T LE OF CONTENTST LE OF AUTHORITIES .iii,iiii

INTRODUCTION 1RGUMENT

1. SUMMARYINTRODUCTION 1

A. COURT ERRRED BY ADDING REQUIREMENT TOSTATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIA ELECTIONCODE 13314, RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANT BARNETT SARGUMENTS 7

COURT ERRED IN NO T RULING ON FACTS AN D LA WBEFORE IT REGARDING CANDIDATE OBAMA S IN-ELIGffiILITY, RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA BOWEN FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANTBARNETT S LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT OBAMAIS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, NO T ACONSTITUTIONAL DE JUREPRESIDENT 10

C. ARGUMENT AS TO AND FO R A DECISION O N T HE L AWBASED UPON CANDIDATE OBAMA S OWN ADMISSIONAGAINST INTEREST THAT HIS LEGAL FATHER IS ABRITISH SUBJECT WHICHAPPLIES TO TH E DUTY OF TH ESECRETARY OF STATE TO BA R BALLOT ACCESS AS WITHPETA LINDSAY OF THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY ORELSE DEEMED ARBITRARY NO T REBUTTED BYRESPONDENTS BOWEN OBAMA, OBAMA FORAMERICA 13

D. COURT ERRED IN RULING CONGRESS IS TH E SO JUDGEOF ARTICLE 2 ELECTION PROCESS AS TO INELIGIBILITY,STARE DECISIS OF 3RD DISTRICTDOES NO T APPLYAPPELLANTS BOWEN OBAMA, OBAMA FO R AMERICAFAIL TO REBUT 16


3/59

E. APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, ACTUAL BIAS, ANDUNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER LAW Y STATEATTORNEY GENERAL AND LOWER COURT, RESPONDENTSFAILED TO REBUT 18

F. CEC 6901 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLEBECAUSE IT PREVENTS SECRETARY OF STATE FROMFULFILLING HISIHERDUTIES AS CHIEF ELECTIONOFFICER 18

G. COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED PETITIONERS DID NOTSTATE ACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTEA CAUSE OFACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDATE UNDERCCP 1085, RESPONDENT BOWEN WRONGLY ARGUESSTARDECISIS APPLIES HEREIN .23

H. COURT ERRED IN RULING SECRETARYOF STATE DOESNOT HAVE MINSTERIAL DUTY TO V T PRESIDENTIALCANDIDATES 27

COURT ERRED BY NOT GIVING rusr CONSIDERATION TOFRAUD RELATED TO OBAMA S IDENTITY DOCUMENTS IN ITSDECISION TO SUSTAIN DEMURERS BECAUSE PUBLICINTEREST OF FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS AND PROTECTINGCONSTITUTION OUTWEIGHS CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SUPPORTSMISPRISION OF FELONY, TREASON 28

J. DEMAND FORWRIT OF MANDATE IS NOTMOOT 29

K. SPECIAL STANDINGOF APPELLANT BARNETTCLARIFIED 31

CONCLUSION 40CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 39EXHIBIT-PRIVATE DEmR CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES .42


4/59

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESFederal CasesThe Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen No. 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB(E.D.Cal. 04/26/2012).................................................................................... 14,15Anderson Celebrezze 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983) .15Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) 11,31Ray v. Blair 343 U.S. 214 (1952) 9,17Bullockv Carter 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972) .16McPherson v. Blacker 146 Us 1(1892), 17Hicklin v. Orbeck (No. 77-324) 565 P.2d 159 30United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169U.S. 649(1898 9 6,31,31,39Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) 219 U.S. 498 .31Sosna v. Iowa (1975) 419 US. 393 .31State CasesStanson v. Mott 17 Cal. 3d 206,551 P.2d 1 28,31Jacobson v. Town ofPortola Valley No. A114960 (Cal.App. Dist.110/18/2007) 22,26Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist (2003) 29Cal.4th 911 916 23Fuller v. Bowen (2012) 203 Cal.App.dth 1476 8,9,25,27Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 647 661 04 17 27Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 1115,1125 27


5/59

Regarding Horneffv ity and ountya un Francisco (2003) 2Cal.Rptr.3d 79 82 30State StatutesCalifornia Election CodeCEC 6901 4,17,18,19,20CEC 6041 20CEC 13314 2,3,6,7,8,9,10,21,22,24Code of Civil Procedure 1085 4,21CCP 1089.5 22CCP 1094.5 22,23 ,24United States Code18 U.S.C. 4 12.2818 U.S.C. 2382 12,28Section 15 of Title 3 of the United States Code 15California State Government Code 12172.5United States ConstitutionArticle II, Section 1, Clause 5 .3z Amendment 17,3114th Amendment 19,23,31,34-371st Amendment 223rd Amendment 224th Amendment 22

California Constitution


6/59

Article VI, Section 10 3

ther uthoritiesChiefJustice of Supreme Court John Jay Contribution To Natural BornCitizen Requirement DfU S Constitution 2The Peace and Freedom Party v. Bowen No 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFBE.D.Cai.04/26/2012 13USCIS Interpretations Regarding Legal Differences BetweenNative,Natural Bom.11,12Trading With The Enemy Act. 29Nazi Enabling Act. 22

iiii


7/59

INTRODUCTIONThis closing reply brief is filed by Appellant Pamela Denise

Barnett in esse sui juris the secured beneficiary agent and attorney-infact for the debtor business trust PAMELA DENISE BARNETT(hereinafter known as Pamela Barnett BARNETT orBARNETT s Agent APPELLANT)) as an essential supplementwith distinction to the opening and reply briefs ofAppellantEDWARD C. NOONAN ( NOONAN ) represented byNATHANIEL 1 OLESON, ESQ. (276695) of the UNITED STATESJUSTICE FOUNDATION. APPELLANT BARNETT filed heropening brief July 10,2013, and was granted an extension by thecourt to file her REPLY BRIEF no later than December 2, 2013.

IRGUMENTS

SUMM RY INTRODUCTION

In the interest of adhering to our nations tenant beliefthat we are a nationof laws and not ofmen and that no man should be above the law,APPELLANT as a private citizen pleads to the court to not cower as othercourtshave done in the interest ofjustice for our country concerning thePresidential usurper known as BarackHussein Obama, a British andKenyanborn citizen, and an adopted son of Indonesia who illegally reignsfrom the White House selling our country to globalist banks and companiesby sending them billions of tax payer dollars instead ofAmericancompanies and selling the American citizen worker down the toilet bypromoting legalizing tens ofmillion foreign invaders that will takeAmerican citizen jobs and drive down our wages and benefits. U.S.Appeal C071764NOON N V OWEN Page 1


8/59

citizens ofCalifornia and African American communities especially standto suffer the most under foreigner Obama's policies to destroy America. should be no surprise that Obama, a person born and raised with foreigninterests, would not have 100 allegiance to this country.

Permitme to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable toprovide a strong check to the admission ofForeigners into theadministration of our national Government, and to declare expressly thatthe Command in chiefof the American army shall not be given to, nordevolve on, any ut a natural born Citizen, future hief Justice of the U.S.Supreme Court wrote to George Washington July 25, 1787, while theConstitution was still being drafted by the Constitutional Convention.

RESPONDENT OBAMA is as much a foreigner as he is a U.S. citizen,if in fact he is one. cannot be legally stated that OBAMA is withoutforeign national citizenship/allegiance. He brings the foreign influence intothe position ofCommander in Chiefthat ChiefJustice warned about. So farObama has supported wars in Libya, Egypt and Syria and wants to committo an endless war in Afghanistan with the purse and the blood ofU.S.citizens where there was/is no national security interest. He has stolen taxpayer money to pay for and promote a new Kenya Constitution to bewritten and adopted which will allow him to run for office as the PresidentofKenya if he so chooses. Which country is OBAMA loyal to the most?

APPELLANT BARNETT had brought the petition based on Calif.Election Statute 13314, which gives her standing to challenge a ballot thatshe believes based on law and fact to have an error based on theineligibility of a candidate, and gives the court the jurisdiction to decide thematter with a writ ofmandate.

A literal reading of this statute plus the 3rd District Appellate Courts ownpast rulings support this petition brought to challenge the election ballotlisting of ineligible, unlawful candidates, like RESPONDENT BARACKAppeal C071764NOON N V OWEN Page 2


9/59

HUSSEIN OBAMA and other candidates similarly situated under u S andCalifornia Constitutional requirements.

RESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA had NOT counteredAPPELLANT BARNETT s argument that she has the legal right to havethis petition heard on merits under CEC 13314. The lower court erred byfalsely stating that RESPONDENT BOWEN had to have failed atperforming a ministerial duty to be able to have legal relief under CEC 13314.

Furthermore RESPONDENTS did not object to APPELLANTBARNETT S request made in her AOB page 3 line 1 that this honorablecourt make a decision on the merits under their power of originaljurisdiction authority under Article VI Section 10 of the CaliforniaConstitution.

Candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA also did not argue against hisadmission against interest that he was born a BRITISH citizen or that thisadmitted fact precludes him from being a de jure constitutional poruscandidate as required under Article II Section I Clause 5 of the U.S.Constitution and subsequently under California law APPELLANTtherefore asks this court to decide the eligibility of CandidateRESPONDENT OBAMA based on his admission against interest that hewas born a British Citizen by his admitted legal father Barack HusseinObama Sr. and thus cannot be a U.S. NATURAL Born Citizen regardlessof his mother s citizenship and/or place of birth of candidateRESPONDENT OBAMA. The lower court and RESPONDENTSBOWEN OBAMA AND OBAMA ORAMERICA failed to provide legalargument that OBAMA is in fact a legal president and by extension alegally qualified presidential candidate. This is understandable becausethere is no legitimate U.S. legal argument that he is a U.S. NATURALBorn Citizen.Appeal C071764 NOON N V OWEN Page 3


10/59

APPELLANT BARNETT would like to clarify with the court that shedid file a Verification with the FAP and refers the court to Augmentation 2.

APPELLANT BARNETT also disagrees with RESPONDENTBOWEN s inference at Footnote 3 in her RESPONDENT BRIEF that;

3These arguments are most clearly identified in the briefof APPELLANT NOONAN who is represented bycounsel. Liberally construed the brief filed by AppellantBARNETT who is proceeding pro se ad van ces t he sam econtentions.

Arguments on appeal by APPELLANT BARNETT are greater innumber and address more issues than contained within APPEALLANTNOONAN S AOB. However for brevity BARNETT had adoptedAPPELLANT NOONAN arguments for her own in her AOB regarding theunconstitutionality of CEC 6901 but also argued that CEC 6901 is notcontrolling in this petition. BARNETT also adopted APPELLANTNOONAN arguments that PETITIONERS did state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action for issuance of a writ ofmandate under CCP 1085 and also argues that CCP 1085 may not be controlling inAPPELLANT S FAP.

CEC 6901 was T brought up in the original petition as it does notapply to this petition because the petition was filed before RESPONDENTBOWEN had even performed her duty to select candidates to be added tothe primary ballot. CEC 6901 only pertains to the general election notthe primary. Consequently this petition now before the court cannot bejudged according to the case Keyes v. Bowen the case decided by thiscourt in 2009. RESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA successfullymislead the lower court with their deceptive offensive to changePETITIONER BARNETT s argument to have this case judged using theKeyes v. Bowen where CEC 6901 was used as the basis to T hear caseAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page


11/59

on the merits.. This is the case that the lower court and RESPONDENTObama would like to have this court use to discard this petition before themso they will NOT rule on the merits of candidate RESPONDENT Obama sconstitutional ineligibility under the NATURAL born citizen requirementwhich should have precluded him from being added to the California Stateballot otherwise it be fraud on the citizens of California.

Also deceptive by RESPONDENTBOWEN is her action to pick andchoose which Presidential candidates to adjudicate for ballot access.Bowen had claimed she did NO T have ministerial duty to removeconstitutionally unqualified candidates from the ballot while removingPeace and Freedom Party candidate Peta Lindsay from the ballot. Lindseyhad made a public admission against interest that she was not of age to bePresident, just as RESPONDENT OBAMA had publicly declared that hewas born a British citizen, the was the son of a Kenyan foreigner who wasnever a U.S. citizen as required by American common law at the time of achild s birth to be deemed a U.S. Natural born citizen. BOWEN S specialtreatment for her Democratic party member RESPONDENT OBAMA isreminiscent of dolfHitler s Democratic Socialist Party, Lenin s Bolshevikparty, and tyrant monarchs such as British King Henry VIII and his court.If you were not part of the party, you had no guaranteed rights like what weare supposed to have under the U.S. Constitution and CaliforniaConstitution.

In addition to the deceptive behavior of RESPONDENTS in attempt totry to lead the court away from the real arguments, OBAMA attempts todisparage private citizen APPELLANT BARNETT by name calling in anattempt to negatively color the court s perception of APPELLANTS bycalling us birthers . In OBAMA s use of Saul Alinsky thug tactics,OBAMA and his regime and operatives have without merit colored citizensthat care that the Constitution is enforced for the protection of our countryAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page


12/59

from foreign influence as racist and/or stupid OBAMA haters. It is wellestablished in Exhibit 10 ofFAP AA 1:180-225) a working copy chapterfrom BARNETT S book Obama Never Vetted, The Unlawful President,The National Security Loopholes Ensuing Conspiracy That EndangerAmerica, that Presidential, Senate and Representative candidatesConstitutional qualifications are NOT required to be vetted. Federalcandidates and elects NEVER even have to prove they are citizens, yetalone have presidential candidates prove they are NATURAL born citizenswith no foreign allegiances -AND NO BACKGROUND CHECK ISREQUIRED TO BE DONE FO R OBTAINING A NATIONALSECURITY CLEARANCE OR VERIFICATION OFCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS REQUIRED AFTERCANDIDATES AR E SWORN IN.

Consequently there is no proofthat Obama was/is even a U.S. citizen,as he has never had to prove U.S. citizenship to be an Illinois State Senator,a U.S. Senator or even the President of the United States, and of course hecould have attended his colleges as a foreign student. Additionally,OBAMA under the alias Soebarkah in addition to Barry Soetoro) washashmarked of f of his mother s passport which indicates that he was not aU.S. citizen according to language on the first page of passport document AA) which was affirmed August 13, 1968, before a State DepartmentVice Consul while residing in Indonesia with his adoptive father Lo LoSoetoro. It is an established fact that John Brennan s company infiltratedObama s passport records in 2008, so we will never know what passportsfrom other countries Obama used and when he used them. Brennan, is along time CIA operative with past assignments in Saudi Arabia, and nowheads Obama s CIA.

APPELLANT BARNETT is only an Army of one private citizen who isa military veteran, using her voice and her pen under what s left of her firstAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page6


13/59

amendment rights, and her right to challenge a wrong on the State ballotunder CEC 13314 to try to ensure the Presidential election results inCalifornia are legal and lawful under our Constitution and the laws ofCalifornia. remains to be seen if this court will allow this private citizenher right to redress of grievances to help expose this crime againstCalifornia and the United States. Thus far, the Supreme Court with twoOBAMA appointees has failed to hear any cases on OB M sconstitutional ineligibility.

A. COURT ERRRED BY ADDING REQUIREMENT TOSTATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIAELECTION CODE 13314 RESPONDENTS BOWEN

OBAMA OBAMA RAMERICA FAILED TO REBUTAPPELLANT BARNETT S ARGUMENTS

The lower court ruled that PETITIONERS could only receive due processunder California Election Code CEC) 13314 if the State failed toperform a ministerial duty. AA 2:404) However, this code that givesredress to the electors of California does not mention or hint that aministerial duty had to have been unperformed by the State. The code doesnot even mention the words ministerial duty . The language of CEC 13314 is plain and direct. Underlined for emphasis by APPELLANT.)

13314. a) 1) An elector may seek a writ of mandatealleging that an error or omission has occurred, or is about tooccur, in the placing of a name on, or in the printing of, aballot, sample ballot,voter pamphlet, or other official matter,or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.2) A peremptorywrit of mandate shall issue only uponproof of both of the following:A) That the error, omission, or neglect is in violation ofthis code or the Constitution.B) That issuance of the writ will not substantially interferewith the conduct of the election.3) The action or appeal shall have priority over all othercivil matters.

Appeal C071764 NOONANV BOWEN Page7


14/59

(4) The Secretary of State shall be named as a respondent ora real party in interest in any proceeding under this sectionconcerning a measure or a candidate described in Section15375, except for a candidate for judge of the superior court.(b) Venue for a proceeding under this section shall beexclusively in Sacramento County in any of the followingcases:(1) The Secretary of State is named as a real party ininterest or as a respondent.(2) A candidate for statewide elective office is named as aparty.(3) A statewide measure that is to be placed on the ballot isthe subject of the proceeding.

RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA ORAMERICA, AND BOWENfailed to rebut APPELLANTBARNETT S argument on this matter and the3rd District appears to be in full agreement with BARNETT.Neither the superior court or the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that

Petitioner Heidi Fuller in Fuller v. Bowen did not have standing underCEC 13314 because the State failed to perform a ministerial duty, on thecontrary, both courts made a ruling on the merits in this case. Like Fuller,BARNETT brought a petition under CEC 13314 because she believedthere was about to be an error made on the ballot, because facts proved acandidate was not eligible under the Constitution.

Quoting from recent Fuller ruling Fuller v. Bowen (2012) 203Cal.AppAth 1476);

Our interpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it s notthe judiciary s role to judge qualifications and elections ofcandidates for membership in the Legislature. This interpretationdoes not invalidate section 13314, however, because the applicationof that section is not limited to challenging the qualifications andelections of candidates for membership in the Legislature.

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page


15/59

We agree with Fuller that it is the judiciary s role to interpret thelaw, including the Constitution. But as we will explain, ourinterpretation leads us to the narrow conclusion that it is not thejudiciary s role to judge the qualifications and elections of candidatesfor membership in the Legislature. This interpretation does notinvalidate section 13314, however, because the application of thatsection is not limited to challenging the qualifications and electionsof candidates for membership in the Legislature. Moreover, becauseour interpretation resolves this case, it is unnecessary to reach anyother constitutional questions, even ifwe might have jurisdiction todo so. (AA 1:99) (Emphasis by BARNETT)

By the court accepting and ruling on the Fuller case it proves that theSecretary of State has ministerial duty to determine eligibility of allcandidates except candidates for the State Legislature when a question ofeligibility ifmade known to her and alludes to the court having thejurisdiction to make a ruling a Constitutional eligibility under CEC 13314. Third District does not ever state in Fuller that a ministerial dutywas not performed by the same Secretary of State RESPONDENTBOWEN. CEC 13314 does not exclude federal candidates and no federallaw exists that would render CEC 13314 unconstitutional if used to vetthe eligibility ofPresident of the Unite States candidates. On the contrary,federal law strongly supports the power of States to vet federal candidatesfor constitutional eligibility as inMcPherson v. Blacker. The McPherson v.Blacker ruling asserts States rights regarding control of elections toincluded ensuring the State has a legal ballot that citizens can rely on.

Lower court and RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA RAMERICA, do not cite a case that references that there has to be a failureof a State officer to perform a ministerial duty to have a judge make aruling using CEC 13314. According to BARNETT s research, no suchcase exists.

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page


16/59

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining ofRESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANTBARNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.

(B) COURT ERRED IN NOT RULINGON FACTS AND LAWBEFORE REGARDING CANDIDATE OBAMA S IN-ELIGIBILITY, RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA OR AMERICA,BOWEN, FAILED TO REBUT APPELLANT BARNETT S LEGALARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT OBAMA IS NOT A NATURALBORN CITIZEN, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL DE JURPRESIDENT

The lower court stated at (AA) 2:392) that The amended petition failsto state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it requires theCourt either to make a factual determination as to whether President Obamais eligible to hold or run for the office ofPresident of the United States....(Emphasis by Barnett)

BARNETT contends that this is not true because the facts and law werebefore the lower court.

Recently the federal court confirmed APPELLANT BARNETT sarguments that the States have the power and the duty to protect the federalballot from fraudulent candidates such as candidate RESPONDENTOBAMA. Correspondingly, the lower court had the duty to rule on thefacts and the law regarding this case to protect the legal interests ofCalifornia and the rights of our citizens.

RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA OR AMERICA, BOWEN, hadthe opportunity in the lower court to rebut admissions against interest madeby candidate APPELLANT OBAMA. APPELLANT OBAMA has publiclyclaimed as his life story that his legal father is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.Divorce paperwork of his purported mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page 1


17/59

legal BritishlKenyan foreign national father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.which was submitted to the court (First Augmentation: 21 26

Sowith APPELLANTOBAMA s own admission against interest thathe was born a British citizen became a fact before the court and with thelong standing definition of a U.S. NATURAL Born citizen which requireboth parents to be citizens in Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) nojudicial determination needed to be made. OBAMA knew this case was adanger to his rise to power and his classmate at Harvard and President ofJustia.com, the most viewed legal website, had the case removed from othercases that referenced it regarding citizenship Link-. CandidateAPPELLANT OBAMA is at best a native born citizen if born in Hawaii,because if he was not born in America he would also not be a U.S. born acitizen under statute through his mother as she was NOT old enough to passon citizenship to a foreign born child. RESPONDENT OBAMA wouldhave had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Even the federal government recognizes that there is a legal differencebetween a NATURAL and NATIVE Born citizen in their administrativelaw that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has relied onregarding loss and regainingU.S. citizenship due to marriage.http://web.archive.orglweb/20100120153413/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/O-O-O-I/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

Three provisions used by USCIS establish official recognition by thefederal government that native-born and natural-born are separatelydelineated. When you visit the above link to a recent past page of theImmigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to Interpretation324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.Interpretation 324.2 a 3 provides:

Appeal C071764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page11


18/59

The repatriation provisions ofthese two most recent enactments alsoapply to a native- n natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herselfby marriage to an alien ... Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2 a) 7) provides: 7) Restoration ofcitizenship isprospective. Restoration to citizenshipunder nyone of the three statutes is not regardedas having erased theperiodofalienage that immediately preceded it.

The words shall be deemed to be a citizen ofthe United States to thesame extent as though her marriage to s i alien h taken place on orafter September 22, 1922 , as they appeared in the 1936 n 1940 statutes,are prospective n restore the status ofnative-born or natural-borncitizen whichever existedprior to the loss) as ofthe date citizenship wasreacquired. Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2 b) provides:The effect ofnaturalization under the above statutes was not to erase theprevious perio ofalienage, but to restore the person to the status naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her statusprior to loss. Emphasis added.)

The above mentioned interpretations regarding the officiallyrecognized different statuses of naturalized, native and natural-born citizenswas published by the ObamaAdministration, but they removed whenpublic attention was brought to native-born and natural-born are givenseparate consideration as they are legally different forms of citizenship.And in the third example - from Interpretation 324.2 b) - the US ISclearly states that each delineation, naturalized, native, or natural-borncitizen , is a separate status. andidateObama may be a nat ive borncitizen if born in Hawaii, but he is NOT a natural born citizen asrequired by the U.S. Constitution to be President.

Appeal C071764NOON N V.OWEN Page 12


19/59

Is it not misprision of felony fraud and misprision of treason under 18U .S .c. 4 and 18 U.S.c. 2382) for the court and its officers not to act in away that would defend the State and the United States from the nationalsecurity risk ofhaving a usurper with foreign allegiance occupy the WhiteHouse?

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining ofRESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.

C) ARGUMENT AS TO ANDFOR A DECISION ON THE LAWBASED UPON CANDIDATE OBAMA S OWN ADMISSIONAGAINST INTEREST THAT IDS LEGAL FATHER IS A BRITISHSUBJECT WHICH APPLIES TO THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARYOF STATE TO BAR BALLOT ACCESS AS WITH PETA LINDSAYOF THE PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY OR ELSE DEEMEDARBITRARY NOT REBUTTED BY RESPONDENTS BOWEN,OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA

RESPONDENTS BOWEN, OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA,failed to rebut APPELLANT S argument that a decision on the law basedupon candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA S own admission against interestthat he was born a British/Kenyan citizen to his British/Kenyan legal birthfather and applies to the duty of the Secretary of State to bar ballot accessas with Presidential candidate Peta Lindsay of the Peace and Freedom Partyor else RESPONDENT BOWEN s inaction be deemed arbitrary. ThatOBAMA in his demurrer provided judicial notice that was accepted by theCourt, and OBAMA was given the opportunity, but did not denyOBAMA s admission against interest in his demurrer, and BOWEN andOBAMA FOR AMERICA failed to rebut this admitted fact as well.BOWEN didn t even investigate the matter when it was brought to her as acontroversy in December, 2008, and then again in December, 2012. She

Appeal C071764 NOONANV. BOWEN Page 13


20/59

made a decision on the law herself instead of referring to court or evenAttorney General for a legal opinion.

It is incredulous that RESPONDENT BOWENwould argue in this casethat she has no ministerial duty or power to remove candidateRESPONDENT OBAMA from the ballot when she has herselfas have pastSecretaries of State removed constitutionally ineligible Presidentialcandidates. Very recently, in a federal case against RESPONDENTBOWEN brought by Peta Lindsay and the Peace and Freedom PartyRESPONDENT BOWEN argues the opposite and does not address herministerial, authoritative action to remove Lindsay from the ballot in herRESPONSE BRIEF as part of the 4th Circuit Court ofAppeal The Peaceand Freedom Party v. ow n No 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB (E.D.Cal.04/26/2012) .

At paragraph 48 the Defendant Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejoins:to the extent that Plaintiffs allege a separate equal protection claim, it alsofails. (Opp n 9:21-28 nA Defendant argues, because Ms. Lindsay isadmittedly ineligible to be President, Plaintiffs are not similarly situatedwith the persons with whom they compare themselves and there is arational basis for the Secretary s decision. Id. Defendant further argues:any difference in treatment is the result of the fundamentally differentcontexts in which the treatment occurred. the cases to which Plaintiffsrefer, the personal qualifications of the various nominees were, fairly ornot, in dispute.

Then, RESPONDENT BOWEN exhibits her arbitrary and capriciousposition and her positive bias toward her party s candidate RESPONDENTOBAMA by then incredulously arguing Where there are challenges to acandidate s eligibility, the Secretary of State has no duty to investigate andverify the personal qualifications of any political party s nominee.BOWEN treats OBAMA and LINDAY differently under the color of law. ppealC 71764 NOON N V BOWEN Page 14


21/59

The 4th Circuit Court ofAppeal The Peace and Freedom Party v. BowenNo 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-EFB (E.D.Cal. 04/26/2012) does also supportthat the Secretary of State has duties under statute That at paragraph 35 the Court states:

Defendant counters, [a]lthough regulation of the selection andeligibility of candidates, inevitably affects an individual s First andFourteenth Amendment right to vote and to associate with others ,where a state law imposes only reasonable, non-discriminatoryrestrictions on these rights, the State s important regulatory interestsare generally sufficient to justify the restrictions. (Opp n 6:26-7:4(quoting ndersonv. Celebrezze 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983).)Defendant further rejoins that [t]he state s important interests in protecting the integrity of the election process and avoiding voterconfusion, justify any limitation on Plaintiffs rights that theomission of a candidate who is admittedly ineligible to serve asPresident may impose. Id. at 9:12-14.

So RESPONDENT BOWEN cares about the integrity of the ballot onlywhen it benefits her partymember RESPONDENT OBAMA?

At paragraph 41 the Court says:

In this case, the Secretary of State excluded Lindsay from the ballotsince it is undisputed that she is eight years shy ofmeeting the agerequirement to hold Presidential office. (Opp n 9:3-4.) AlthoughLindsay argues this age requirement does not apply to her request tobe listed on the ballot, Plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on thisargument since the tate understandably and properly [mayl

Appeal C071764 NOON N V OWEN Page 15


22/59

seek[] to prevent the clogging of its election machinery [and)avoid voter confusion, by restricting who is listed on the ballotto persons meeting the age requirement applicable to assumingthe presidential office. Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145(1972)(also stating a State has an interest, ifnot a duty, to protectthe integrity of its political processes from frivolous or fraudulentcandidacies ). This age limitation is a neutral candidacyqualification, which the State is authorized to impose. Bates v.Jones, 131 F.3d 84 847 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Zielasko v. hio873 F.2d 957,961-62 (6th Cir. 1989)(affrrming district court sdismissal ofFirst Amendment and Equal Protection challenges tostate constitutional provision that precludes election or appointmentof any person to state judicial office who is seventy years old orolder).

Presidential candidate RESPONDENT OBAMA and presidentialcandidate PetaLindsay both made public admissions against interest, but apartisan government bureaucrat BOWEN treated them unequally byremoving non Democrat Lindsay from the ballot. Federal courts side withAPPELLANT BARNETT s arguments that the lower court was required toact in the State s interest to remove constitutionally unqualified presidentialcandidates from the ballot. As such, the lower court s erroneous sustainingofRESPONDENTS s demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANTBARNETT s prayer for reliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.(D) COURT ERRED IN RULING CONGRESS IS THE SO JUDGE

OF ARTICLE 2 ELECTION PROCESS AS TO INELIGIBILITYSTARE DECISIS OF 3RD DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY,

APPELLANTS BOWEN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA FAILTO REBUT



23/59

BARNETT argues that the Court erred when it claims in the MinuteOrder a alleged exclusive power Congress to be the sole judge theArticle 2 election process as to ineligibility cited (AA 2:405);

Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 647,661, the Court Appeals held that the California Secretary State was under noministerial duty to investigate and determine whether a presidentialcandidate is constitutionally eligible to run for that office . TheCourt explained that federal law provided the appropriate remedythrough an objection to electoral votes in Congress under Section 15 Title 3 the United States Code. Because this remedy existed,the Court held that a writ mandate could not be issued to compelthe California Secretary State to investigate the eligibility apresidential candidate..

APPELLANT s AOB argues well that this is a fallacy not based on factor law, and refers the court there, but also emphasizes that the 3rd DistrictCourt s opinion that Congress is the sole judge presidential eligibilityflies in the face the Separation Powers by eliminating the power thejudiciary to interpret the law and the State s right to run elections. Thisopinion the court is not based in law, so stare decisis does not applyregarding argument that Congress is the sole arbitrator presidentialeligibility. Pursuant to the Mcpherson v. Blacker ruling, an Alabamastatute Ray v. Blair 343 U.S. 214 (1952) to require candidates forpresidential electors to pledge to vote for the presidential nominee chosenby the party and require removal electors who would not make thispledge was allowed to stand - there also proving the power the Statelegislature to decide onmatters over ballot access.

The 20th Amendment which mandates Congress remove a Presidentelect shall have failed to qualify, but this is only a remedy after adetermination ineligibility would have been made. tis the Judiciary thatinterprets the law, while Congress would be the enforcer such a finding.



24/59

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forrelief within the Conclusion should be granted.

E)APPEARANCEOF IMPROPRIETY, ACTUAL BIAS, ANDUNEQUAL TRE TMENT UNDER L W BY STATE ATTORNEYGENERAL AND LOWER COURT, RESPONDENTSF IL TO REBUT

APPELLANT BARNETT contends the State Attorney General KamalaHarris committed fraud on court in their Demurrer argument to dismissPetitioner s writ. They acted under color of law by acting with extremebias for Democratic presidential candidate OBAMA and the Democraticparty, while arguing for removing from the ballot a non-Democrat PetaLindsay for presidential ineligibility - her public admission against interestis the same ilk of candidate OBAMA s admission against interest.APPELLANT BARNETT asks court ifKamala Harris and APPELANTBOWEN s acting under color of law in extreme bias and going againstCalifornia and U.S. Constitutions is sanctionable?As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining ofRESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forrelief within the Conclusion should be granted.

F) E 6901 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLEBECAUSE IT PREVENTS SECRETARYOF STATE FROMFULFILLINGmSIHER DUTIES AS mEF ELE TION OFFI ERBARNETT does not agree that CEC 6901 is controlling or even

relevant to PETITIONER s FAP as the PETITIONERS filed beforeBOWEN s duty under EC 6901 as Secretary of State was performed. Inits order sustaining RESPONDENTS demurrers, the lower court stated thatAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page 8


25/59

CEC 6901 is not unconstitutional and is not unenforceable because theSecretary State does not have a legal duty to t ~ i n the eligibility candidates for President the United States before their names may beplaced on the ballot AA 2:391). The CEC 6901 states the following:

Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section7100,7300,7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary State its certified list nominees for electors Presidentand Vice President the United States, the Secretary State shall notify each candidate for elector his or hernomination by the party. The Secretary State shallcause the names the candidates for President and VicePresident the several political parties to be placed uponthe ballot for the ensuing general election. Elections Code 6901

The 3rd District Appellate Court erroneously took away the States rightto run elections, to include federal elections and have created a loophole forconstitutionally unqualified candidates major parties to achieve ballotaccess by not even having to attest that they are legally qualified. Theyalso give extreme power to political parties when there is no safeguard inplace that will force the party to act under the laws ofCalifornia and theU.S. Constitution when selecting their candidates for office. It is theSTATE s that were given the awesome power to orchestrate elections, not apolitical party that has no statutory liability, and there is no settled law tosupport this arbitrary and capricious behavior a State officer todiscriminate against one party over another violates Equal Protectionguaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN

-Page 9


26/59

In addition there is an evil step mother to CEC 6901 which is CEC 6041 which is also unconstitutional as it promotes capricious behaviorbased upon party affiliation and it promotes fraud as it removes therequirement for certain party candidates to affirm they are qualified for theoffice they seek. This leads to unequal treatment under the law as seen byRESPONDENT OWEN saction in removing a non Democratpresidential candidate from the ballot for the same infraction that candidateRESPONDENT OBAMA had made. CEC 6041 is another ministerialduty for the Secretary of State to add candidates of certain parties to theprimary ballot at only he r discretion. If Bowen lawfully has discretion toadd and remove candidates in the primary why could she NO T remove acandidate that is NO T constitutionally qualified from the general electionballot? If for example a criminal breaks into your house and takes upresidence while on vacation is he entitled to stay because you weren t thereto kick him out before he started living there? APPELLANT BARNETTwould include a Cause of Action to deem CEC 6041 unconstitutional andunenforceable if given the opportunity to amend complaint.

CEC 6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of acandidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or shehas determined that the candidate is generally advocated for orrecognized throughout the United States or California asactively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party forPresident of the United States.

The effectively one party Democratic Party system of California haseven made it such that their Presidential candidates don t even have to signunder penalty ofperjury that they are legally qualified to be porus soNOT to create a fraud on the citizens of the State and create a distance fromcriminal fraud as no one from the party nor the candidate has to attest thatsaid candidate meets the Constitutional eligibility requirements.

Appeal C071764 NOON N V OWEN

Page 20


27/59

Ironically, because of the 3rd District Court of Appeal, and others like itaround the country that don t believe in defending tile Constitution, thecourts have helped produce the most absurd result of all- we have aBritish citizen controlling our country and our military after our Foundersfled Monarchial slavery and tyranny of feudalism. King George must belaughing in his grave as he has gotten his revenge. The elite politicalsystem rules as they see fit, not how the Constitutionwas written. eareno longer a nation of laws, but of tyrannical men and women ruling us howthey see fit.

RESPONDENT OBAMA has created in his illegal reign insurmountabledebt mostly going to foreign banks that cannot be paid back by Americancitizens for generations. Obama has taken away millions of citizenshealthcare plans with his ironically named Affordable Care Act which theAmericanmiddle class cannot afford. Many of these people will not beable to get the medical care they need for themselves or their children. Thisis not short of criminal manslaughter and possibly pre-meditated murder asObama knewmillions of American would lose their healthcare.http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/kids-with-cancer-Ioseinsurance-due-to-obamacare/

The joke is that the poor already received free healthcare throughMedicaid and hospital charity care which is now destroyed byRESPONDENT OBAMA. is only the working poorAmerican citizenmiddle class that has not benefitted and are now getting further gougedpaying higher premiums to global insurance companies - many times forcedto pay for services they do not want or need. The power to tax is the powerto destroy. In addition, to the fleecing of the middle class, there is atyrannical invasion of privacy with the government being involved withhealthcare . http://investigations nbcnews com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obamaadmin knew millions could not keep their health insurance?liteAppeal C071764 NOONAN V BOWEN

-Page 21


28/59

This is analogous to the Enabling Act from 1930s Berlin. The Centralgovernment became the repository of data about all tierman citizens. Theyknew who was physically or mentally incapacitated (remember how agassing truck pulled up to a sanatorium in Limburg, told the mentally andphysically handicapped children they were going for an outing, andexterminated them all at once ); they knew who opposed them andappeared at their doors too. Stalin used his network of spies to imprisonand murder millions of political dissidents. RESPONDENT OBAMA'sspying on everyone through the NSA actually gives him and his party theinformation they need to use political persuasion by blackmailingCongressmen, judges, wealthy individuals, political operatives, foreignallies, etc. . ,

Ironically, the State of California legislature used their State right tonullify the section of RESPONDENT OBAMA'S NDAA (NationalDefense Authorization Act) which legalizes the taking away of U.S.citizens' civil rights. OBAMA has during his illegal reign listed Veterans,Christians, and those that believe in protecting the civil rights of unborncitizens as terrorists. This threatens U.S. citizens 1st and 3rd and 4thAmendment rights. These citizens can now be targeted by OBAMA'sgovernment as terrorists that could then lose their right to due processbefore being unlawfully executed by the government.

As under King s rule, those loyal to the king richly rewarded,OBAMA gives no bid contracts to his political friends. Valerie Jarrett's(OBAMA's Iranian born Chiefof Staff daughter, Laura, and son in lawwork for CGI the company that produced www.healthcare.gov. Although itis not widely successful at selling insurance, it is very successful atcollecting personal financial and medical data on Americans for Obama andhis political operatives. They can and will use to destroy opposition as theyhave already proven in the IRS s tyrannical behavior toward conservativeAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page


29/59

groups. CG I was also awarded HU D contract to assist in the distribution of1.7 billion in relief for Hurricane Sandy. -

At least California Democratic legislators finally drew the line toRESPONDENT OB M S tyranny of taking away U.S. citizens 14thAmendment Right of due process of law under the National DefenseAuthorization ct(NDAA).

As such, the lower court's erroneous sustaining of RESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT B RNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.

(G) COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED PETUIONERS DID NOTSTATEACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OFACTION FO R ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDATE UNDERCCP 1085, RESPONDENT BOWEN WRONGLY ARGUES STARDECISIS APPLIES HEREINRESPONDENT BOWEN states the following in her brief at page XX;Moreover, it is well established that traditional mandamus does not lie

to control an official's exercise discretion but only to compel anofficial to perform a ministerial act within the meaning ofCode of CivilProcedure section 1085, subdivision (a). (See, e.g., Common Cause v.Board Supervisors (1989) 49 Ca1.3d432,442; Kavanaugh v. WestSonoma County Union High School Dist (2003) 29 Ca1.4th911,916[ A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to performin a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate oflegal authorityand without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning suchact's propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exist. ].)

RESPONDENT BOWEN does not have discretion as Secretary of State tonot enforce election laws. She is not allowed to have an opinion that sheshould not enforce election laws because she deems the act of enforcingelection law to have impropriety. In using the Kavanaugh v. West case in herdefense she deals with a double-edged sword that more properly sides with



30/59

BARNETT s argument that BOWEN was not allowed by her mandate oflegalauthority to enforce election law to allow a Constitutionally unqualifiedcandidate on the ballot when she knew of the facts that Candidate OBAMAwas born a British citizen and could not be a U.S. Natural born citizen. This isa ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.According to Government Code 12172.5. (a) The Secretary ofState is thechief elections officer of the state, and shall administer the provisions of theElections Code. The Secretary of State shall see that elections are efficientlyconducted and that state election l ws re enforcedThe writ ofmandate is to compel the performance of an act which the lawspecially enjoins, as a duty resulting from and office, trust or stationRESPONDENT BOWEN as Secretary ofState has As CCP 1085 states

CCP 1085 (a)A writ ofmandate may be u ~ by any court to anyinferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel theperformance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a dutyresulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admissionof a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which theparty is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precludedby such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.

Furthermore, she has a ministerial duty to be named as a party andrespond to this Writ ofMandate according to CEC 13314.

Additionally, APPELLANT BARNETT argues that the petition underCEC 13314 isNOT a traditional mandamus action because the codedictates that the petitioner USTfile a WRIT OF MANDATE to seekrelief. It does NOT state that the State or one of its efficers had to fail atperforming a ministerial duty. Simply the cause of action is that a mistakewas about to be made on the ballot, the mistake being that presidentialcandidate Obama a non Consitutionally qualified candidate would be addedto it.

Furthermore if the court were to try to add a civil procedure requirementto CEC 13314, this petition is more reminiscent of CCP 1094.5 as

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN

Page24


31/59

RESPONDENT Bowen made an administrative decision to addRESPONDENT OBAMA to the ballot even after fQJ l lal electioncomplaints were made by PETITONERS regarding Obama s ineligibility.

Regarding the lower courts CCP 1085, BARNETT emphasizes thatthe Cause ofAction was that an error was about to be made on the ballotand filed under CEC 13314 because Respondent Candidate OBAMA isnot constitutionally qualified to be president and Congress has proven toopolitical and inept to act on this usurpation and no court in California orhigher court have definitively ruled on candidate Obama s eligibility underexisting American common law.

The existence of 13314 proves that the State BOWEN as ChiefofElections) has/had a ministerial duty to review and correct the ballot forerrors, because is required that the Secretary of State be named as aRespondent or Party in Interest.

RESPONDENTS OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, and BOWENhave both treated this action as if it is a traditional mandamus action whenall things considered this could be considered an administrative mandamusaction under CEC 13314. In fact, CEC 13314 itselfoffers anadministrative remedy by allowing a complaint, and then consequently aruling by the court.

The recent ruling ofFuller v. Bowen supports this line of reasoning asFuller brought action under 13314 to challenge a candidate that she didot believe to be eligible under the law. The lower court heard thecomplaint and no mention was made by court that SOS Bowen the sameAPPELLANT BOWEN) did NOT grant demurrer based on CCP 1085AND an unfulfilled ministerial duty.

Regarding CCP 1094.5, the court seems to have the flexibility to judgewhether this would be a mandamus under CCP 1094.5 or CCP 1085.

Appeal C071764NOON N V.OWEN

Page 25


32/59

Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is the appropriate standardof reviewwhere the challenge is not to the awinistrative proceedingper se, but to the decision being in violation of a duty under the law.Liberally construing Petitioner s claims, the Court views them aschallenging the decisions ofRespondent as violations of dutiesimposed by law. A traditional writ ofmandate under section 1085 isbrought to compel the performance of a legal, usually ministerialduty.*fn5 In contrast, the purpose of an administrative mandamusproceeding under section 1094.5 is to review the final adjudicativeaction of an administrative body.

The final adjudicatory action ofRESPONDENT BOWEN was to keepcandidate RESPONDENT OBAMA on the ballot after APPELLANTBARNETThad made a formal election complaint to BOWEN, but neverreceived a reply. However, another original ad hoc group petitioner had

received a reply that no law was broken and they would not investigate.The affirmative action by BOWEN after a formal election complaint was

made regarding excluding candidate OBAMA from the ballot- after sheweighed the evidence of the complaint more closely conforms to anadministrative mandamus not the traditional writ the lower court andRESPONDENTS BOWEN and OBAMA champion as their right to notdecide the case on the merits. In Jacobson v. Portola Valley, the courtdiscusses the difference between mandamus actions and the courts power todecide. acobsonv. Town Portola Valley No. Al 496 (Ca1.App.Dist. l10/18/2007) -A traditional writ ofmandate under section 1085 is brought tocompel the performance of a legal, usually ministerial duty.*fn5 Incontrast, the purpose of an administrative mandamus proceeding

under section 1094.5 is to review the final adjudicative action of anadministrative body.Further..Jacobson purported to bring her writ petition under thetraditional mandamus procedure set forth in section 1085. However,the styling of her petition is not determinative: Although petitionerbrought this proceeding under section 1085, this court can treat it as



33/59

it were brought under section 1094.5, section 1094.5 applies.(Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center 199 r222 Ca1.App.3d 1115,1125.) The Town claims that this action is most properlycharacterized as one for administrative mandamus because theTown s council was acting in an adjudicatory capacity when itapproved the TSM and SDP in 2005.

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining o RESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.

H OURT ERRED IN RULING SE RET RY OF ST TEDOESNOT H VEMINSTERI L DUTY TO VET PRESIDENTI L NDID TES

APPELLANT BARNETT brought mandate in question using CEC13314 and there has not been an appellate ruling so Star Decisis does notapply like RESPONDENT OBAMA alleged.

BOWEN has proven once again in practice that not only does theSecretary o State have the power to vet presidential candidates forconstitutional qualifications, but she has the power to remove candidatesfrom the ballot as she had done with non Democrat Peta Lindsey, Peace andFreedom presidential candidate. (See AOB page 23 at Debra Bowenrejoins;.) Lower court followed 3rd District ruling in Keyes v. Bowen, butfailed to consider 3rd District Court ruling o Fuller-e. Bowen which is inline with PETIONERS arguments that the SOS has a ministerial duty toensure ballot access is to constitutional standards, as previous CaliforniaSecretaries o State have done by removing other constitutionallyunqualified candidates.

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining o RESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANTBARNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page 27


34/59

-I COURT ERRED BY NOT GIVING JUST CONSIDERATION TO

FRAUD RELATED TO OBAMA S IDENTITY DOCUMENTS IN ITSDECISION TO SUSTAIN DEMURERS BECAUSE PUBLICINTEREST OF FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS AND PROTECTINGCONSTITUTION OUTWEIGHS CIVIL PROCEDURE AND

SUPPORTS MISPRISION OF FELONY TREASON

In regarding, competent authority Maricopa County Sheriff JosephArapio s report of document and identity fraud regarding OBAMA, courtshould have weighed this evidence in its decision to sustain demurrer. Asthe department, in fulfilling this informational role, was obligated toprovide a fair presentation of the relevant facts. Sin plaintiff specificallyalleged that public funds were expended for promotional, rather thaninformational, purposes, his complaint stated a valid cause of action, andthe trial court erred in sustaining defendant s demurrer. If plaintiffprovesthe allegations of his complaint at trial, he will be entitled to atleast a declaratory judgment that such expenditure of public funds wasimproper, and, perhaps, injunctive relief as well. Stanson v. ott17 Cal.3d 206 551 P.2d 1. In this instance the expenditure of public funds wouldbe the fraudulent presidential ballot with at least one NOT constitutionallyqualified candidate - Barack Obama- and the ensuing election. Thedeclaratory judgment being that OBAMA did not win, but the

constitutionally qualified candidate with the second highest votes did win.This would re-establish faith in elections and the judiciary, because theywould have proven that no man is above the law.

Is it not misprision of felony fraud andmisprision of treason (under 18U.S.C.4 and 18 U.S.C. 2382 to knowingly do nothing while a Presidentialusurper who has foreign allegiances and who may not even be a U.S.citizen runs our country into the ground with debt and waging wars?



35/59

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining mRESPON ENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forrelief within the Conclusion should be granted.

J DEM ND RWRIT OF MANDATEIS NOT MOOTThe lower court did not rule that BARNETT s case is moot, and the

controversy is still ongoing and will continue on forever until courts justlyrule on facts regarding OBAMA s constitutional ineligibility. This courtcan still issue a writ of mandate and a declaratory judgment thatESPONDENT OBAMA was NOT the legal winner ofthe 2012 electionbecause he does not meet the Constitutional qualifications for President,and therefore name the rightful winner, and then file with the ElectoralCollege members and the judiciary committees of both houses of the U.S.Congress. Also, this case can be referred to a non-partisan specialprosecutor to further investigate the forgery crime against the citizens ofCalifornia. Their findings can then also be shared with the same judiciarycommittees.

A declaratory judgment will clarify the legal definition of a U.S.NATURAL born citizen as it pertains to presidential qualifications so thatfuture candidates will know and understand the reqUirement which willhelp ensure that such a massive fraud is NO T committed against thecitizens of California again. Also, hopefully this will lead to legislation thatwill require that all future presidential candidates all candidates) providecertifiable, non-forged proofthat they were born within the United States tocitizen parents to help ensure that future Presidents have sole allegiance tothe United States, not Britain, Kenyan, Indonesia, and so on.



36/59

The harm is ongoing as CANDIDATE RESPONDENT OBAMA wasillegally declared the winner of the California Electoral votes. The legaltenant that ongoing injury overcomes mootness was supported by theSupreme Court inHicklin v. Orbeck (No. 77-324) 565 P.2d 159.

The invalidation of the one-year durational residency requirementdoes not moot the case, since a controversy still exists between thenonresident appellants, none ofwhom can qualify as residentsunder the statutory defmition, and the appellees, state officials.Those appellants thus have a continuing interest in restraining thestatutory discrimination favoring state residents. P. 523.The case has continuing public interest. In the California caseHorneffv.

ity and ounty Sun rancisco (2003) 2 Cal.Rptf. 3d 79 82, the court sreasoning would agree with BARNETT that petition is not moot because ofcontinuing public interest.

The City s appeal is arguably moot because the election has alreadytaken place and Proposition A passed. Nevertheless, this court hasthe discretion to consider the merits if the appeal presents a question capable of repetition, yet evading review or the issue is ofcontinuing public interest. Respondent urges us not to apply thiswell-established exception to the mootness doctrine in this case. Sheargues that our prior decision in Brennail, supra. 125 Cal.App.3d 87,177 Cal. Rotr. 677 has settled the law concerning the requisitecontents of a digest prepared by a Ballot Simplification Committeeand the standard to be applied in determining whether a judiciallyordered revision is appropriate. edecline to deem the case moot.heissue raised is a matter of continuing public interest, and thearguments in this appeal demonstrate the need to clarify our holdingin Brennan. (Emphasis by BARNETT)

Finally, the harm caused to California electorate is repeatable asCalifornia and other courts are evading review and more notconstitutionally qualified candidates are gearing up to run for President.For example, Senator Ted Cruz, who was born to a Cuban citizen fatherand U.S. mother, is actively looking to run for President and Democraticoperatives attack him for this. Senator Marco Rubio born to 2 CubanAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN

Page 3


37/59

citizen parents was/is considering running for President. Marco Rubio likeWong Kim Ark was born only a citizen under the 14th Amendment to nonU.S. citizen parents. The court NEVER ruled that Arkwas a U.S. naturalborn citizen, they only ruled him a citizen. United States v. Wong Kim rk 169 U.S. 649 (1898) This ruling came out after the Minor v.Happersett ruling (1875) which statedMinor, who was born in U.S. to twocitizens, was a Natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that exception to the mootnessdoctrine is an injury capable of repetition yet evading review. Seegenerally Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. (19Jrl) 219 U.S. 498 andSosna Iowa (1975) 419 US. 393.

As a reminder Stanson v.Mott 17 Cal. 3d 206,551 P.2d 1 states, Ifplaintiffproves the allegations of his complaint at trial, he will be entitledto at least a declaratory judgment that such expenditure of public funds wasimproper, and, perhaps, injunctive relief as well.

The 20th Amendment allows for removal ofPresident for disability. Notmeeting the eligibility requirements for the office of the President under theConstitution is a disability. A declaratory judgment by a State court couldlead Congress to look at this option and remove Obama and replace himwith his natural born citizen Vice President Biden. As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining ofRESPONDENTS sdemurrers should be reversed and APPELLANT BARNETT s prayer forreliefwithin the Conclusion should be granted.

K. SPECIAL STANDINGOF APPELLANT BARNETT CLARIFIEDAPPELLANTBARNETT had publicly declared in AOB pages 7 22,

that she is a Private Citizen with extra-statutory standing. NeitherRESPONDENT BOWEN nor QBAMA responded or argued against thistruth made known to the court.Appeal C 71764 NOONAN V. BOWEN - Page 31


38/59

-Appellant BARNETT s Agent wishes to clarify her status before

this Appeal Panel as there is a substantive judicial notice to beconsidered with regard to her non statutory status in that PamelaDenise Barnett in esse and sui juris is the sole secured beneficiaryagent and attorney-in-fact for the debtor business trust organizationPAMELA DENISE BARNETT,1 AFFIANT is both unique and apartfrom the status the other Plaintiffs as each is merely the urety-ndenture to his respective debtor beneficiary entity owned with titleby the respective State birth and or domicile herein represented bytheir counsel.

Documents filed with a Georgia County registrar changed mystatus from that an surety-indenture to the debtor who was anenemy combatant on conquered territories as defined since theNational Emergency martial process that replaced the civil process bythe Franklin Delano Roosevelt FDR) Proclamations: 2038 March5, 1933 for an emergency session Congress, 2039 March 6, 1933declaring a bank holiday and 2040 March 9, 1933 for a continualnational emergency then validated by Congress with the Amended-he Trading with the nemy ct of1917 40 Stat. 411, enacted 6October 1917, codified at 12U.S.C. 95a et seq.) that put Americancitizens into perpetual servitude on March 9, 1933, and that until thisday is renewed annually as an act enormity that takes thedebtor/surety tax payments along with collateral property and labor,for investments in the government influenced markets servingthe Vatican, via the United Kingdom, Creditors to the 1933 UnitedStates Bankruptcy Debt Reorganization Plan. Dr. Karen Hudes,WorldBank attorney for 20 years, http://kahudes.net/about-us/ ,Appeal C071764 NOON N V OWEN Page 32


39/59

-(http://www.youtube.com/wa ch?v=gHVgRgYdCsQ) The sameCreditors who prefund purchase all of the Debtors Federal tax cashflow paid annually through the Creditors Internal Revenue Servicebased upon the expectation of lifetime (65 years) income of everydebtor surety-indenture payment to the Creditors trustees for theongoing U.S. bankruptcy debt reorganization plan implemented in1933.

APPELLANT BARNETT has affirmed or sworn all of theseocuments and they are available for court at Exhibit 1. AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH Notice ofRescission of Signatures of

Suretyship NUNC PRO TUNC-- with 2 pages affirmed October5 2013

Commercial Securi A reement - witnessed 4 pages affirmedOctober 5, 2013

UCC l Financial Stateme .t registered with the Secretary of StateofKentucky with file 2013-2663177-78.01 on September 5, 2013

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION filed andrecorded in Clerk s Office.September 3, 2013--BPA BOOK 30Pages 29 thru 32

That unlike my fellow Plaintiffs, my secured sole beneficiarystatus history is germane affirmative judicial notice herein for thepanel to consider for provision of civil process as I am entitled tounder Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection andsubstantive due process guarantees rather than martial processrendered to the other plaintiffs appellants herein:

a) That American National citizens, Public citizens (artificial-e-Appeal C071764 NOON N V.OWEN Page 33


40/59

-persons) and Private citizens (natural persons), are protected bythe federal government via Section 1 of the 14th Amendmentafter 1868.

b) The artificial personlPublic U.S. citizen attached to every 14thAmendment natural personlPublic U.S. citizen is a creation ofeach State government via a Birth Certificate on file in the Stateof the natural person s birth. The name of this artificialpersonIRoman persona is in all capital letters and termed-Capitis iminutio Maxima This all-caps name is a nome guerre (name ofwar) for the Roman persona Public U.S.citizen to be treated as an enemy ofwar by every EmergencyWar Powers court. Further, the name tag of every Americansoldier is in all capital letters, also indicating his name ofwar.Thus, the all-caps name is used for both soldiers and enemiescaptured in war publically residing in the states deemed mereconquered territories by the defacto Military Government inWashington, D.C.

c) All income of the artificial personlPublic s citizen, forwhich the individual 14th Amendment Private U.S. Citizen issubordinate Surety may be income/excise/privilege taxed. Allincome of the artificial person derived from any sourcewhatsoever may be war taxed save those sources exemptedby the Congress or mandatorily excepted ---the Church andits integrated auxiliaries.

d) That historically the dejure Federal US Citizen of the Republicof the United States status became ew Status in 1868 whenthe prior Federal U.S. Citizenship becamqj-Iational U.S.

Appeal C071764NOON N V OWEN Page 34


41/59

Citizenship.

e That Americans transitioned from being first citizens ofourstate and thereby citizens of these United States Article IV,Section 2 , with privileges and immunities that includedcommon law rights on a Federal Level, including the First EightRights of the Bill ofRights, to being first Citizens of theUnited States and thereby Citizens of the State wherein theyPrivately resided at Common Law 14th Xinendment, Section1 , with Privileges and Immunities with NO Common LawRights on a Federal level;

f) There was a loss ofCommon Law Rights in 1873 asFundamental Rights/Common Law Rights, when the SupremeCourt declares Fundamental Rights/Common Law Rights RNOT Privileges and Immunities ofNewNational U.S.Citizenship 1 ; and

g Further, that the ew Statuswent to Contract in 1906, when theNational 14th Amendment US Citizen becomes Surety for the-Artificial Person/Martial Persona became Surety for anArtificial Public U.S. citizen in Commerce created on theState level by Contract through Operation ofLaw, and theIndividual Public U.S. citizens lie dormant until March 9, 1933and the Individual Private U.S. Citizenship continues untilMarch 9, 1933.

1 Slaughterhouse cases,1873. Supreme Court rules privileges and immunities o thnew 14th Amendment American citizenship do not include fundamental rights, do notinclude common law rights and later, do not include th first eight Bill o Rights, xwell v. Dow 1900 ; Twining v. New Jersey 1908 . Appeal C071764 NOON N V.OWEN Page 35


42/59

h) Further, that the New Status in Contract was activated in 1933with the above referenced Emergency War PowersProclamation 2040 ofMarch 9, 1933, thereby the IndividualPublic U.S. citizens created on State Level are NOW SEIZEDas Booty of the National Government; Individual PrivateU.S. Citizenship absorbed into Public U.S. citizenship; thePrivate U.S. Citizen is wedded and attached to Public U.S.

citizen; and therefore, the Private U.S. Citizen is now Surety forPublic U.S. citizen and that the altered Citizenship createsAltered U.S. Jurisdiction

i) Further, the New Status in ontract in Commerce of 1935 asseized Booty: rendered the Artificial PersonlPublic U.S. citizenPLACED IN COMMERCE Public U.S. citizens nowInsured Surety - Private U.S. Citizen can Fight and Pay forendless war and enrich the creditors (Dr. Karen Hudes,World ank attorney for 20 years, http://kahudes.net/about-us/ ,(http://www.youtube.com watch?v=gHVgRgYdCsQ) so thatthe Natural Person/le Amendment Private U.S. Citizen isSurety for 14th Amendment Public U.S. citizen in Commerce,and the Artificial PersonIRomanPersonalPublic U.S. citizenGiven a Social Security Number/Tax Identification Number(reference War is a Racket (1935) by Gen. Smedley Butler). (2)

j) Further, that there was Loss ofFederal Common Law Process War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retiredUnited States Marine Corps MajorGeneral and two time Medal ofHonorrecipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from hisexperience as a career military officer how business interests commerciallybenefit from warfare.Appeal C071764 NOON N V OWEN Page 36


43/59

and Federal Common Law Rights in 1938 when the NaturalPerson/14th Amendment Citizen loses all Common Law,Federal common law and Federal common law rights ofnaturalpersons previously protected by u s Supreme Court Decisions WOVERRULE by two Roosevelt Court , Decisionse.g. Erie Railroadcase, 1938 overruled Swift v Tyson 1842

. -nd Caroline Products case, 1938 overruled Lochner v NewYork 1905 ;

k) Further, that the w Status in Contract at War in the 1950Emergency War Powers Executive Order then activated thestatus that governs all In Personam Jurisdiction. Both Criminaland Civil Jurisdictions, ofboth Federal and State Courts arenow Military in Process; Courts are Constitutional in FORM,but Military in SUBSTANCE. These Courts fly Federal andState Martial Flags with three sides bordered with gold fringeand or with gold cords and tassels. _

1 AFFIANT contends a child to be a natural born Citizen s)hemust be born in the country to parents who are both eithernatural born Citizens and or citizens of the United States bynaturalization at birth or after birth.

m)AFFIANT on December 10, 1970 was naturally born in theRepublic ofGermany on U.S. Army base to U.S. Citizensstationed with the U.S. Army,n) AFFIANT, a natural person, became a dejure, natural bornPrivate United States itizen on the day of his natural birthursuant to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution;

Appeal C071764NOON N V.OWEN Page 37


44/59

0) AFFIANT, by operation of law, was pledged as roperty for,wedded to and made Surety for, a de f cto artificial person,statutory ublic United States citizen by means of aCertificate ofLive Birth created on February 16, 1971, uponthe filing of the trust instrument presented to the ConsularService of the United States at Frankfurt Germany ;

p) AFFIANT, by operation oflaw was restored to her formerstatus of being a rivate United States itizen upon the filingof a Notice ofRelease Without Consideration being NUNCPRO TUNC with the Clerk ofCourt, Lamar County, Georgia,on September 3 2013;

q) AFFIANT can eliminate any presumption of fact that Affiant isroperty of, or Surety for, said statutory Public United Statescitizen by having the court file this exhibit Notice ofRescission of Signatures of Suretyship NUNC PRO TUNCith this Court Clerk herein the State ofCalifornia, in which

Affiant makes her home, privately residing on the land atCommon Law and not publically residing according to statute;

r) AFFIANT, by virtue ofher constitutionally protected status ofbeing a Private United States Citizen, is as foreign to thepresent def cto Emergency War Powers jurisdiction of theUnited States, the former de ur Common Law jurisdiction ofthe United States (as per Section 1 of the 14th Amendment)having been altered and/or modified into the present de f ctoCivil Law jurisdiction of the United States-by acongressionally-amended, World War I statute and asubsequent presidential proclamation, both events transpiring

Appeal C071764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page 38


45/59

on March 9, 1933; THEREFORE:s) AFFIANT is not a statutory public United States citizen;t) AFFIANT is not a statutory public resident the United

States;u) AFFIANT is not a statutory United States person:) AFFIANT is not a statutory non-citizen national;

w) AFFIANT is not a statutory public citizen the State California;

x) AFFIANT is not a statutory public resident the State California;

y) AFFIANT is not a statutory resident alien;z) AFFIANT is not a statutory non-resident alien;aa)AFFIANT is not a statutory taxpayer;bb) AFFIANT does not have a statutory tax home within the

U.S.;cc)AFFIANT is a nontaxpayer pursuant to conomy Heating

n Plumbing United States 470 F.2d 585, 589 (1972);dd) AFFIANT, as a matter public record, is the Non-

Surety Agent and Attorney-in-fact for the transmitting utilityand Public U.S. citizen PAMELA DENISE BARNETT;therefore Affiant is the beneficial owner all income derivedfrom her exclusive use the NAME PAMELA DENISEBARNETT, presently under public commercial lien andcopyrighted, copy-claimed and trademarked by Affiant.o recap, the surety- indenture Usurper Barack Hussein Obama

II in esse by his own admission against interest as an exception to thehearsay rule that his legal father was a British subject when he wasAppeal C071764NOON N V.OWEN Page 39


46/59

born, is not a natural-born citizen (NBC) according to the USConstitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S 1C5) mandate andrelated law, and is not eligible to serve as President and or with suchconflict as the U.S. bankruptcy reorganization x utiv trustestablished since the March 9, 1933 Presidential.Proclamation whenby operation of law all judicial and administrative process is done byMilitary rather than civilian process.

As such, the lower court s erroneous sustaining ofRESPONDENTS s demurrers should be reversed and APPELLANTBARNETT s prayer for reliefwithin the Conclusion should begranted.

ON LUS ONBased on the forgoing, BARNETT respectfully requests in this

conclusion a prayer for reliefthat this Court reverse the lower court sjudgment ofdismissal after Sustaining RESPONDENTS Demurrers andremand the case to the lower court with instructions to orderRESPONDENTS to answer FAP or, in the alternative, with instructionsto provide PETITIONERS leave to amend, or this honorable court ruleson the facts and American common law regarding the presidentialconstitutional eligibility ofcandidate OBAMA and issues a Writ ofMandate to have RESPONDENT BOWEN declare candidateRESPONDENT O M was not the rightful winner ofCaliforniaElectoral Votes in 2012 and 2008, that other constitutionally eligibleandidates won, and file with the Electoral College andjudiciarycommittees of both Houses ofCongress. Also, RESPONDENTrequests Declaratory Judgment to clarify who is/who is not aAppeal C 71764 NOONAN V BOWEN Page40


47/59

NATURAL born citizen capable of running for President of theUnited States to eliminate confusion with the candidates and theelectorate and/or different and other relief.I PAMELA RNETT in esse agentofPMEL BARNETTdepose and say under penalty ofperjury according the laws of thestate ofCalifornia that the above is true and correct based uponinformation and belief.

Dated: 12 2 2 13Signed: Lincoln CA

Appeal C071764NOON N V OWEN

American Freeman in esseand sui jurisSelf Represented In Pro PeragtG

Page 41


48/59

CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCEInpro perAppellant herebycertifies that pursuantto Rule 8.204 c 1 or

8.504 d 1 the CaliforniaRulesof the Court,the enclosedBrief of theAppellantis producedusing 13-pointor greater Romantype, includingfootnotes and contains 11 500 words which is less than the total wordspermittedby the rules the court, Appellantin pro per relies on the wordcountof the computerprogramusedto preparethis brief.Dated: 12/2/2013 Respectfully Submitted,

I7 rilV1CLA BARNETT Agent,Private CitizenAPPELLANT INPROPERagiO

Appeal C 71764 NOONAN BOWEN Page 42


49/59


50/59

L Pamela Denise t . ~ t . } C n t ' $ ~ ~ nnd (I 1 ' ( , ~ ; d k ' n ~ id lh{? StAtt:'Q( Cit1ifnnlii\, i n k n H)H hHTito reITner naf mi ltir er; ' : { ~ t U ' : l : f(Jfl}( t r-,,{i t\: n'y : W ~ i m ; tnnh ( S t f t t e ~ Constuuuon. and d ~ f b e d fh v H . e n f t A ~ 1 2G1US 43, lA

1, Pamela Denise Barndt in eese end ; ) h o o t u t d , ~ ' r _ : ~ l ~ t ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ U t x . ' : m < } n Q ~ p r ? } ~ r t t , f ' ; ' ; ( ~ ' t ; ~ t , ~ , tq,el n,j/,.requitable, in the vuhHc t . J n h ~ d States ~ ) f . < ~ I S h crcatccrtbe filinA{ f the tru-st Instrument 10 the COfltdM S f ' - r ~ ' k r . .:/f the Umtedui e Of:t:d CertifitMe No. : n=:r1:ified ilh the Consular Re-eort dBirth. Abrood OF AUNrrEn S'fATES OF i\MF:iHCA No, 015992 { S : < 7 e ~ ~

i\(;(;ordjngly,l, PRwdu Denise Barnen in arid ~ \ . d j u r i {Rtk arf..Ql>e end i y underj '''.1ty oi , jltty,Releasor until {tH1 fii.)tk>e b k>OH ;d for servlee 01 2351 Sunuet Bculevnrd. S:.dt: 170921. R 0 1 : k h n ~

C ; 1 ) H ' o r t < i > ~ within th t S ~ a t r nf ( > i 1 t i J ~ ) f 1 ) ~ ' ' flHhdivhlc>tl of (\'l'unty of PJ(Key

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION

STATe OF CAl,tf i)RNlA )) MI,COUlfTV or I UCEl l )

} a n } ~ ~ l t l t > t d ~ n,rnwH tn f.R >:f tHd l n ~ ; : H i i u> be Lhi:::; R f : t : ; ~ ~ t : - < l : t _ K ' : ' C u : t ~ d and d d , ~ ' f , f , , , , j, ' t - 0 0 0 l : ' \ l f t n : ~ with tbe St :: tK dZ::, hf::n >: PHO\: lSI0NS PAHT 14, X-()\-VEltH,{)f-' ,APPfHNTMKNTCHAPTER i L E X R B . C l ~ g o r FO\\TRH Of AVPCHNTMf-C,n A r h d i ~ - C l l t P h : - 1 A f ~ r D l g ~ ~Relensea S ' ~ f 1 . k m (.61 kr Dou-c l ' V ~ t > } ~ < m ~ - i : m * i d Z ' r ' i ~ b { n l eud Ci)i.AJ release delivery_

1'0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Rd ensee

1, f ' l - lmth f )tnh n lrnf.>tt in f ; . < i , V ~ OJ)(lgmnted Dr t i n l fcd by t Ccn sntuttontiJtMfJd l i ~ \ ~


51/59

ttL 1:< uit .;;, ZE c h c ~ . . t c:::< . t . Ei -x 3;,: :;: Ct:i t i.:. e2 W s --C.Q i: - f/ >tr ~ k :Z.. . ~ , 70 c, C 1.:.i ~ ; : J;-;;0: A ;t.U < -ee t, 2 t;: E--< :f: : E :R,x :::J E :N. s \C ,( :3: ; i0,: ? n '%;h f:;: r:ls ::= /7;E--< -;:: s ,,:, G,; ;,I;:. : 2 / i; zi .... e: ;t. ;0 :,,,-,1 * } ;t r: 7P ....-: J l r,: A :JZ E lQ k E eC. r.: :;: e; ..::i z: . :>: ' J K .c .;: 1 C t,. U;G W t Citf: 12 Il t:C:E u 6f t 15(11 E--< ,..:C b .0rr:: Z i;,li.... In ?f IJZ i f Q


52/59

.Av ardimlllY. 1. P l t U l \ t ~ n C l l i ~ Barl1wu, iTl esse wl;lfJId .keli>fi: zHldet 171mtl,flll:mt 1u D I I l ~ naTndt, r e ~ d i n u lUll. f l V E ~ e Nunc h o 'rUIN: eve ) vI'' lI'ct:v.ttj(:, pllib tk Mil t,rivlltt,eVi:t by Afii: Ult(: if) b.>\Vll OJllIUrnl: Nwtkenr RelW:%. i 'n of Sigl1l11WfU wf S n ~ t Y J h t J }NUNt: PRO Tl}NCe:,lcn' to every priva {t< DttiitlCl$ CW lltlfct T'his rexei&:;ion ;vJtCV{)C.illit.bU$ineti11r&;urarC\Mld~ l ( l r n ~ iJ: $\w;mcoe; an,1 Cltw In Ih..: dnle 1&. J':l7 . the Uiile t f:llI:lilinE;md tcgft5ttl .1km 'Jfaniillll'i Certilk::Meof UN; H nn to Ihe C.) w;ff\t

4


53/59

l


54/59


55/59

* . ~ ~


56/59

00

: c: s I )o rn .< 1 > t ' z fl Itt = . i Zl:i ' 'X}rn f 1'4 . .< zr- ' 0. 0 C> '2I: C ce ,il: r- ;;l - J: < a -Ie :; W l>III c :r -II c Z r , rn'r E x; :r rn =: ' J d -I'0 .eU 'n:; d-o


57/59

A ~ . i M , ~ . ~ - , , , ,- , - . _ ~ - - - - _ . - - ~.:II.1W41'ofMI'

~ J i ~ ~ 7 . t ~ ~ l Q . f: : . r , w ~ , , , I l ; t i , J ' ~ '.w;h(I ., IJ$. I l ; : < l . t ~ 5l1r# . 111 1

F l ' ~ F O F S i t i ~ E ~ ~ M r ( j ; f J p $ ~ I )rn CI f ~ f ~ I 1 f 1 ~ ~ r t H

' S ~ f l T ' i l ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ : l ' ~ ~ : S :

NJ y ; . ~ n 'US Jl1ST1CE ' o t ~ D A T t O N931: p sr. &Tf )


58/59

o Namesand addresses of additional persons servedand delivery dates andtimes are listedon the attached page writeAPP-009 Iiem 3b at the top of thepage .

APP 9 - - C O - 7 - 1 7 - - - 6 4 : : - ~ T I C SE NUMBER

e Date delivered:d Time delivered:

Person served:a Name:b Addresswhere delivered:

c Date delivered:d Time delivered:

e Date delivered:d Time delivered:

2 Person served:a Name:b Addresswhere delivered:

Personal elivery I personally delivered a copy o th documentidentified above as follows:1 Personserved:

a Name:b Addresswhere delivered:

C SE N ME NOON N OWEN


59/59