Pamela Barnett, June 4, 2010

RE: Response to Judge Chang’s Erroneous Order (draft)

Judge Chang stated in order “No explanation is given for why plaintiff waited several
months after the candidate filed his requisite papers before seeking an OST for an
Order to Show Cause RE: Injunctive Relief.” Plaintiff only had confirmation that
Damon Dunn’s Declaration of Candidacy and California Voter Registration Form
were erroneous and fraudulent, on or about April 13 when Plaintiff received a
copy of the letter from Jean Marie Atkins, Director of Voter Administration, Office
of the Supervisor of Elections, Florida, confirming that Damon Dunn had a prior
voter registration as a Democrat in Florida and tried to get the Florida elections
department to erase his voter registration record. Plaintiff filed a formal
complaint with the Secretary of State’s Office within a couple weeks on May 3,
2010, believing this to be the proper channel for voter, ballot, and election fraud.
While waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State’s Election Fraud Division,
Plaintiff filed her complaint against Damon Dunn, Debra Bowen, and Edmund G.
Brown May 10, 2010.
Plaintiff, a pro se party did research into trying to get an expedited hearing on
removing Damon Dunn from the ballot. Plaintiff then submitted an Order to Show
Cause for Injunctive Relief May 21, 2010, to have Damon Dunn removed from the
ballot and not have any votes be counted for him. Plaintiff would have filed this a
few days earlier but was out of town on a business matter. The Order to Show
Cause was filed under the guidance of Article III, but was rejected by the court.
Plaintiff was then denied two times by court officials at the phone line to set up
a Ex Parte hearing. Plaintiff was successful on the third attempt, but Judge
Chang did not give me the courtesy of a hearing even though all defendants had
representation at the Ex Parte hearing June 2, 2010. Judge Chang saw that all
Defendants had representation at the hearing and would she have asked the
bailiff to check with Plaintiff to see if she had filed a Declaration of Notice of Ex
Parte hearing, Plaintiff would have given him a stamped Declaration of Notice
filed before the hearing. Plaintiff thought that this Declaration was included in the
packet submitted to the judge before the hearing. To this day my Declaration of
Notice of Ex Parte Hearing has not been docketed but is attached for review
(Exhibit ). The fact that all defendants had representation at the hearing, proves
the Defandants were all properly noticed.
Plaintiff doesn’t know if Judge Chang actually reviewed all of the documents
presented to the court by Plaintiff, because Plaintiff never had a chance to ask
Judge Chang because she was denied a hearing of a vitally important election
matter regarding fraud.
These statements affirm my due diligence in trying to get a hearing on removing
Damon Dunn from the ballot as he is not qualified and properly following court rules of
procedure regarding noticing of the parties.