Application Ex Parte No FeesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 5, 2021OO--]O\U1-l>~ KO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Arthur Master . 839 Morrison Park Drive, Apt 102 San Jose, CA 95126 415-3 17-9290 artmaster@usa.com ARTHUR MASTER, IN PRO PER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO City of Los Altos Case No.: 7/1($004 7 ”I ) Ex PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE SPECIAL MOTION To STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 STAY/SET ASIDE R0 UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND ALL PARTIES IN ATTENDANCE Petitioner VS. ARTHUR MASTER Respondent DATE: TIME: DEPT: Judge: Arand Dept: Action Filed: November ,2021 TrialDate: TBA vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, 0n November 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 1 0f the Santa Clara County Superior Court, I91 N lst St, San Jose, CA 951 13, Respondent Arthur Master does file this Ex Parte Notice of Motion and Moves the Court for it’s Order To Dismiss, and nullify the RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam. Case Ne 21CH009’797 \- _]_ UI-DDJM \OOO‘~40\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Courts previous TRO and present PRO based on the Plaintiff‘s Petition for Workplace Violence Prevention for injunctive relief, with prejudice, and Moves the Court t0 Order for sanctions against the City of Los AItos/Petitioner, the representing attorney and the Protected Party, and such a level so as to discourage either Party from Defrauding the Court in order to silence the true victim 0f unlawful violence, being battered by the Protected Party and then double arrested, committed to a psych ward 0n a 5150 hold for 72 hours over a personal vendetta. The Respondent further will move the Coun to order a Special Motion t0 Strike (SLAAP) the Petition and all Workplace Violence Restraining Orders ofTRO and PRO, pursuant t0 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. Or In The Alternative Order To Stay/Set Aside Workplace Violence Restraining Orders Until Hearings Can Be Held, and the Respondent then moves the Court to provide; Orders t0 Appear on the following witnesses: LAPD Chief Andy Galea, LAPD Captain Krause, LAPD Agent Jessica Vernon, LAPD Captain Scott McCrossin, and LAPD Supervisor 0f Records Tabitha Jacobson; and as well as Orders t0 subpoena; Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage fiom LAPD Captain Krause, and LAPD Agent Vernon, dated July 30, 2020 (relevant 79 min telephone, which was recorded by body cam) RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUIHCE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -2- \DOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage fiom LAPD Captain Krause, and LAPD Agent Vernon, dated July 3 1, 2020, (relevant S9 min telephone call, which was recorded by body cam), and as well as; Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage from LAPD ChiefAndy Galea, dated July 3 I, 2020, (relevant 56 min telephone (cellular) call, which may have been recorded by body cam), and as well as; Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage fiom Agent Jessica Vemon, dated September 21, 2020, body cam recording beginning approximately at 9:21 a.m. as evident by the incident report which noted Agent Jessica Vernon was dispatched to the address of Whole Foods, on W E1 Camino Real and was ordered to respond to the call and complaint about a shirtless man sitting in the bus shelter who was yelling at passersby, Agent Jessica Vernon double-parked on W E1 Camino Real, walked around to the sidewalk and made eye-contact with the Respondent. Over the next 15 minutes the Protected Parked was derelict in her duty, and began an assault on the Respondent first yelling from the sidewalk across the fiont parking lot at Whole Foods, Mr. Arthur Master’s, Respondent’s, workplace. Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage from Agent Jessica Vernon, dated October 14, 2020 beginning approximately 1:00 p.m. at the location, the Respondents home, from the time the Agent arrived and through the Agent leaving the location, the Respondents home. RESPONDENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH I'REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California. County cf Santa Clara. Case Ne 21CH009797 -3- Ln-bUJN \DOON-lc‘s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage from all other police personal arriving at the scene through their departure, October 14, 2020 beginning approximately 1:00 pm. at the location, the Respondents home. Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage fiom the two officers who 0n October I4, 2020, at the location 0f the Respondent’s home, beginning at approximately 1:00 pm,- t0 include the time approximately 1-3 hours later, when male officers removed the Respondent from the police vehicle t0 adjust the handcuffs restraining the Respondent which caused bleeding. The officers then did remove the Respondents tic, unbutton his dress shirt, spread open the shirt, wide apart t0 the anterior on both sides of the shoulder to reveal the Respondents entire chest, and upper torso and then did photograph the Respondents red and marked body; chest and neck, and which was caused by Agent Jessica Vernon. Los Altos Police Department captured body cam footage fiom the officers who on October 14, 2020, at the location of the Respondent’s home, occurring approximately between 3-4:00 pm from beginning when an unknown female officer transferred the Respondent from one police car, and transferred the Respondent to a larger vehicle, possibly a van, through when then a male officer, then got into the vehicle and transported the Respondent from L03 Altos to San Jose for booking and through to until the ofiicer left the booking station. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH l'REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAl’P) PETITION OR [N THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTHL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLas Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -4- #LA \)O\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 :City of Los Altos’ Attorney Jolie Houston was in her office on at 9:30 am 0n November 15, 16, 17,!22, 23, 24 and 25 2021 when contacted by the Respondent t0 provide notice 0f the Ex Parte notice and hearing and t0 provide a copy 0f the motion. The receptionist put me 0n hold and after advisinlg Mrs. Houston who was calling the receptionist put those calls directly into the voicemail. ‘Those recorded phone calls, and left voicemail messages document the multiple times the ReSp01i1dent asked whether Mrs. Houston would be opposing. N0 returned calls, 0r emails from Mrs. Houston or from her office. The court can examine those recordings t0 verify those true facts at any court hearing. The receptionist tried reaching the attorney and her assistant several times. The \ assistant also emailed the attorney and her assistant the Respondents question, “will you oppose?” J The Respondent provided notice 0f the ex pane motion and emailed the motion to the attornéy. that he and I would apply t0 the court for an order to Dismiss and an order t0 Strike the Workplace Harassment Restraining Order at the clerk’s office the Santa Clara Superior Cou11, at 191 N E lst St, San Jose, CA 951 13 0n Monday, November 29, 2021 at 0r before 8:30 am. l} Arthur Master, Respondent could not make this request by regular noticed motion, previofsly and has filed to Terminate the order twice before. The requirement to personally serve the nofice on the Protected Party, who had been avoiding service, is a police officer and the workpilace, the police department, and closed due t0 COVID-l 9, made the process too inequitable and burdensome. ‘ The Protected Party was served at the workplace, a competent co-worker accepted the sewicé after reviewing the packet and after answering the few questions that she had, as it was relayed by the person, who service the notice of process. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH I'REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. Ciry ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court 0f California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Nc 21CH009797 -5- \OOO'NJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The court should accept this Ex Parte Notice 0f Motion and Motions 0n the following two, good cause, principals. TINIE IS OF THE ESSENCE TO PREVENT AN A GRAVE AND UNINDURABLE INJUSTICE There isn’t time enough t0 prevent the long-time friends, and co-workers of the Protected Party, who are police officers, police agents, captains and sergeants from filing police reports and who work at the Los Altos Police Depanment (LAPD). CO-WORKERS OF THE PROTECTED PARTY ARE MOTIVATED TO ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITYU AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT GAVE THE LAPD THE MEANS TO ABUSE THE RESPONDENT PARTY THROUGH ITS ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE REIEF, AND THE POLICE INVOKED OPPORTUNITY THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR SPECIAL POWERS SIMPLY BY CITING ‘CAUSE’. The Court did not foresee the obvious conflict 0f interest created by it’s issuance 0f ordering inj unctive relief, originally in the form of a TRO, and the after hearing order for PRO. which is the very body endowed with the jun'sdiction and who only need t0 invoke the discretional “cause” declaration in order t0 create subject matter jurisdiction. The co-workers have filed seven allegations that the Respondent violated the court order after hearing. The DA, has taken up two of the seven. Pretrial motions begin December 9, 2021. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS W'ITH PRE.IUDICE,SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 2|CH009797 _6_ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The danger is being found guilty of intentionally disobeying a court order, when the facts are the Respondent lives 60 miles away, has not violated any order 0f the courts, and the police admittedly have not read the origina order 0r the after order hearing. By phone, Oficer Major was not troubled that she could not say what was on the court order, in her words, “The art was harassing and it disturbed Jessica’s peace.” It also did not bother the officer that the are was part of 400 painting confiscated by his landlord and the insurance company, owned by the landlord, hired a local attorney to investigate the claim and found in favor of the Respondent. The claim with AMIG for the losses was settled before the date of the violation, and the art continues t0 be in the possession of the landlord. The only third party who had access was the LAPD, who admitted t0 a relationship with the landlord of the Respondent, a busines not even in theirjurisdiction. There admission is in the report, sent to the DA. THE FAMILY WILL COLLAPSE IF THE RESONDENT IS JAILED FOR THE DURANTION OF THE TWO TRIALS Santa Cara Superior Court has said, one more violation and the Respondent will be incarcerated. That is an easy obstacle to avoid if the actions ofthe Respondent were enough. The Respondent will continue t0 obey the orders as he has, but a violation has always been at the discretion of the LAPD, and as long as they have jurisdiction, the order will be abused and the fate of the Respondent his partner, and the four boys he has cared for since his brothers home burned down 0n March 22, 2021 , and he has temporary custody. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH I’REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California. County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -7- UNITED STATES CODE Adler v Vaicius (1993) 21 CA4th 1770, 27 CR2d 32; Brekke v Wills (2005) 125 CA4th 1400, 3 CR3d 609: Brown v Department of Corrections (2005) 132 CA4th 520, 33 CR3d 754: Byers v Cathcart (I997) 57 CA4th 805, 67 CR2d 398: City ofLos Angeles v Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 37 CR3d 632: City of Palo A1£0 v Service Employees Int’l Union (2000) 77 CA4th 327, 91 CRZd 500: City ofSan Jose v Garbett (2010) 190 CA4th 526, 118 CR3d 420: Cooper v Bettinger (201 5) 242 CA4th 77, 194 CR3d 772: Diamond View Ltd. v Herz (1986) 180 CA3d 612, 225 CR 651 Duronslet v Kamps (20 12) 203 CA4th 717, 137 CR3d 756: Elster v Friedman (1989) 211 CA3d 1439, 260 CR 148: Ensworth v Mullvain (1990) 224 CA3d l 105, 274 CR 447: Franklin v Monadnock Co. (2007) 151 CA4th 252, 59 CR3d 692: Freeman v Sullivant (201 1) 192 CA4th 523, I20 CR3d 693: Grant v Clampitt (1997) 56 CA4th 586, 65 CR2d 727: Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 CA4th 1228, 29 CR3d 521: Hurvitz v Hoefflin (2000) 84 CA4th 1232, 101 CR2d 558: In re M.B. (201 1) 201 CA4th 1057, 134 CR3d 45: Kaiser Found. Hosps. v Wilson (201 1) 201 CA4th 550, 133 CR3d 830: Kenne v Stennjs (2014) 230 CA4th 953, 179 CR3d 198: Kobey v Monon (1991) 228 CA3d 1055, 278 CR 530: Krug v Maschmeier (2009) 172 CA4th 796, 91 CR3d 452: Leydon v Alexander (1989) 212 CA3d 1, 260 CR 253: Los Angeles, City ofv Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 37 CR3d 632: Table ofCases MB. California Judges Benchguide 20-54 M.B., In re (201 1) 201 CA4th 1057, I34 CR3d 45: Malatka v Helm (2010) 188 CA4th 1074, 116 CR3d 343: Marquez-Luque v Marquez (1987) 192 CA3d 1513, 238 CR I72: Merco Constr. Eng’rs v Mun. Court (1978) 21 C3d 724, 147 CR 63 1: Nebel v Sulak (1999) 73 CA4th 1363, 87 CR2d 385: Nora v Kaddo (2004) 116 CA4th 1026, 10 CR3d 862: Palo Alto, City ofv Service Employees Int’l Union (2000) 77 CA4th 327, 91 CR2d 500: People v Sangiacomo (1982) 129 CA3d 364, 181 CR 90: R.D. v RM. (201 1) 202 CA4th 181, 135 CR3d 791: Robifizine v Vicory (2006) 143 CA4th 1416, 50 CR3d 65: Russell v Douvan (2003) 112 CA4th 399, 5 CR3d 137: Sangiacomo, People v (1982) 129 CA3d 364, 181 CR 90: San Jose, City ofv Garbett (2010) 190 CA4th 526, 118 CR3d 420: Schild v Rubin (1991) 232 CA3d 755, 283 CR 533: Schraer v Berkeley Prop. Owners’ Ass’n (I989) 207 CA3d 719, 255 CR 453: Scripps Health v Marin (1999) 72 CA4th 324, 85 CR2d 86: Siam v Kizilbash (2005) 130 CA4th 1563, 31 CR3d 368: Smith v Silvey (1983) I49 CA3d 400, 197 CR 15: Thomas v Quintero (2005) 126 CA4th 635, 24 CR3d 619): USS-Posco Indus. v Edwards (2003) 11 I CA4th 436, 4 CR3d 54: Youngblood v Wilcox (1989) 207 CA3d 1368, 255 CR 527: 4:. \DOO-QONU’I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IS THE COURT PROHIBITED BY CCP §527.8 FROM ISSUING AFTER HEARING ORDERS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SHOWING THAT APPLICABLE ACTS OCCURRING AT THE WORKPLACE? The Court erred in ruling in favor 0f the Petitioner, the ehlployer was not eligible t0 apply for a Workplace Violence Protection order which requires that any violence showing must have occurred, or threatened t0 occur at the workplace. DID Tl-[E COURT ERR UNDER CCP §527.8 IN ISSUING A TRO ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ”WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SHOWING THAT APPLICABLE ACTS OCCURRJNG AT THE WORKPLACE? The threshold for obtaining a TRO is lower than the PRO, still the essential elements 0f a Workplace Violence Prevention order require unlawful violence and it occurring at the workplace. It does not protect from unwanted harassment, or domestic violence in the home. The legislators wrote the code to support employer who are required t0 prove a safe workplace, from accidents, illness 0r threats 0f violence, for their employees when they are physically at the workplace and walking to and from their vehicles at work. WAS THE COURT MISLED BY THE PROTECTED PARTY, AGENT JESSICA VERNON’S, AND HER ASSERTION THAT SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF THE RESPONDENT’S UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE AT THE WORKPLACE? RESI’ONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -1- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Courts are lagging when it comes to addressing some specific rules of law that provide false assumable. Bad actors, who are also attorneys, process servers, police officer use those assumable and use the law for corrupt purposes. DH) THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT AGENT JESSICA VERNON SUFFERED UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE BY THE RESPONDENT APPLICABLE UNDER CCP §527.8? DID THE CITY 0F LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER PRESENT ANY EVH)ENCE THAT AGENT JESSICA VERNON SUFFERED FROM THE THREAT OF UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE BY THE RESPONDENT APPLICABLE UNDER CCP §527.8? DID THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT AGENT JESSICA VERNON SUFFERED FROM THE UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE WORKPLACE, THE LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD), APPLICABLE UNDER CCP §527.8? DID THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT AGENT JESSICA VERNON SUFFERED FROM THE UNLAWFUL THREAT OF VIOLENCE BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE RPISPONDPJN'F‘S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION 'l'O STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofws Altos v. Arthur Master. Supcn'or Coun of California, County cf Santa Clam. Case Nc 21CH009797 -2- OOO-xJONUi-b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 WORKPLACE, THE LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD), APPLICABLE UNDER CCP §527.8? DID THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT AGENT JESSICA VERNON SUFFERED PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE WORKPLACE, THE LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD), APPLICABLE UNDER CCP §527.8? N0. The City of Los Altos, Petitioner, the Protected Party, Agent Vernon, and Captain Krause failed to provide that date, the time, 0f any incident of unlawful violence by the Respondent at Los Altos Police Department. The City 0f Los Altos, Petitioner, the Protected Party, Agent Vernon, and Captain Krause failed to provide, an incident report, n0 police report, 0f any incident 0f unlawful Violence by the Respondent at Los Altos Police Department. The City 0f L05 Altos, Petitioner, the Protected Party, Agent Vernon, and Captain Krause failed to provide evidence 0f calls by LAPD dispatch operations, their calls for help, or putting out an APB 0f the suspect and relating to any incident of unlawful violence by the Respondent at Los Altos Police Department. The City 0f Los Altos, Petitioner, the Protected Party, Agent Vernon, and Captain Krause failed to provide evidence of any request made of the District Attorney for an arrest warrant/s related t0 any incident 0f unlawful violence by the Respondent at Los Altos Police Department. RESPONDENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNA’I‘IVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court 0f California. County cf Sama Clara, Case Nc 21CH009’797 -3- \OOO'xle 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City 0f Los Altos, Petitioner, the Protected Party, Agent Vernon, and Captain Krause failed to provide evidence of an eye witness testimony, a witnesses’ after the fact testimony or any testimony from the Protected Party about her ordeal and her sufi‘rage related t0 any incident of unlawful Violence by the Respondent at Los Altos Police Department. The Court will not get any answers from the Protected Pany. She was coached to not appear in Court after the Respondent spoke with the LAPD Chief and Records Supervisor to verify facts of Vernon’s contradicting testimony. Both provided proof that Jessica Vernon was not dispatched to a Safeway where Mr. Master was causing a disturbance, and she said in the petition. In the Police Report after she viciously battered the Respondent over a personal issue, and then did commit a false arrest and a false 5 1 50. To obscure the bare fisted beating, the arrest and the secret 72-hours hold at a psych facility under false pretenses. Vernon felt she needed a narrative about the respondent palpable t0 peers and came up with this false statement. “As part ofmy duties as an officer, I have been dispatched to multiple business where Mr. Master is causing a disturbance” Agent Jessica Vernon. LAPD ChiefAndy Galea and Records Supervisor Tabitha Jacobson confirm Agent Vemon had never been dispatched to a call involving Mr. Master. In the Petition Vernon brushes off a point of specification about their relationship this way. “. . .and I arrested Mr. Master on or about October 20, 2020 in an unrelated incident.” This date, which she knew to be 10/14/2020, is the most significant date of her career and the most worrisome. RFSPONDENT'S EX l’ARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R 1N THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofbos Altos v. Arthur Masrer, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 2|CHOO9797 _4_ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 She omitted that on July 30, 2020, she and named party Captain Krause, abused Master for 74 minutes, the following day July 3 1, 2020for 59 minutes, and then 0n September 21, 2021 went to the respondent’s work, Whole Foods and threaten to arrest him when she saw him next, said he would “not like it” and continue for 15 minutes until it ended only after Master and his pafiner fled. 7 affidavits of eye witness are filed in this case on the record. The LAPD and the City found these occurrences were UNFOUNDED. Police Captains, sergeants and Chiefs, all looked into them and found them t0 be unfounded. They have since been found. Jessica Vernon wrote to excuse herself, and then wrote another affidavit, in her attempt to cover up her lies with new ones. 24 hours after the chief confirmed those statements untrue. The reason Vemon could not make the court date, she could not find a baby sitter. So good is Vernon at finding sitters in a pinch, $68,500 in overtime last year. That is circumstantial, what is a fact, is that Jessica Vernon already had a baby sister, it was confirmed that Vernon went to work on the date of the hearing. The photos taken of the vicious battery 0n the Respondent, by two officers who took them. Omitted from Vernon’s report and all comments of any physical contact, a fire able offense. One third 0f the City of Los Altos’s budget goes to the LAPD and Vernon now earns $330,000 per year. She makes 0n average .5 (based 0n total arrests divided by the entire staff at the LAPD, if the non police staff are removed, her average improves to 1 arrest per month) arrests each month and her conviction rate on those arrests is 4%. The attorney here representing is paid $1 8,000 per month. RESI’ONDENT'S IEX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTHON TO DISMTSS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPI‘) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH I'ARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court 0f California, County cf Santa Clara. Case Ne 21CH009’797 -5- \OOO\10\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 The Court is responsible for not foreseeing the potential for abuse by putting the power to violate a restrained person , in the hands of the Protected Party, who continues to find ways to victimize him. Seven violations, 2 prosecutions, zero violations. The Respondent is paying t0 be revictimized and to fend off two prosecutions for violating the court order, which was not violated. DOES CCP §527.8(1\4). SEE §20.35. REQUIRE TIE COURT TO DETERMINE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS PROPERTY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION, THE TRO, AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE PETITION? Yes, CCP §527.8(m) 20.35. requires that proof of service t0 be 0n Judicial Council form WV- 200 filed with the court. The required manner 0f service is t0 be served is by personal service at least 5 days before the hearing. DOES CCP §527.8(NI). SEE §20.35. REQUIRE THE COURT T0 ENSURE THE RESPONDENT IS SERVED LEGAL NOTICE OF A COURT ORDER SHORTENING THVIE, THE COURT’S ORDER ON CONTINUANCE, THE COURT’S ORDER EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF ITS ORDER ON TRO, THE COURT’S ORDER ON ADA ACCOMMODATION, FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED, WHO IS EXEMPTED AT ALL TIMES FROM WEARING A MASK BY ODER OF GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM, AS RFSI'ONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH l'REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAP?) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. Ciry ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of Califomia, County cf Santa Clam, Case Nc 21CH009797 -6- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECOMMENDED BY CALIFORNIA HEALTH DEPARMENT, THE COURT’S ORDER SHORTENING THVIE, AND ASSURE THAT THE PETITIONER PROPERLY SERVED THE RESPONDENT ALL REQUIRED NOTICES (5) DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO HEARING DATE UNLESS THE COURT ORDER SHORTENING OF TIME? Notice of court order continuance is required to be served at least 5 days before the new healing date, unless the court has shortened the time for service for good cause. DID THE PETITIONER CAUSE THE COURT TO LOSE JURISDICTION? The Court’s jurisdiction is divested in a Respondent who was served notice and went to the hearing date and it was not being held. If the Respondent has not been legally served noticed, and the addresses provided t0 the Court by the Petitioners have defrauded the Respondent of his right t0 be heard, the Court has legally lost jurisdiction and must nullify any court order afier healing. JURISDICTION DIVESTED BY RULE OF LAW The Court’s jurisdiction, over the Respondent who has remained fully compliant by the rule 0f law, with all legally serviced noticed and orders according to the law, and who was not served legal notice, notice and did not receive any notice at all, who has not been served legal notice, has been divested RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH I’REJUDICE, SPECHAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Anhur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 _7_ DID THE COURT’S JURISDICTION EXPIRE ON MARCH 22, 2021 AS WAS THE ORDER MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PARTY, AND WHICH RELEASED THE COURT FROM IT’S REQUIREMENT OF MAILING NOTICE? Yes. The Court’s jurisdiction did expire when the Respondent was the only party to show up for that hearing date. The Court has not had legal jurisdiction in the case since March 22, 2021 and the Court did not have legal jurisdiction to issue an after hearing restraining order. DID THE COURT ERR BY NOT ISSUING AN ORDER ON THE RESPONDENT’S TIMELY FILED MOTION. NEGLECTING TO ISSUE AN ORDER ON THE TIMELY FILED ADA REQUEST OF THE HEARING- IMPAIRED RESPONDENT? Yes, the Court erred in not issuing its order 0n the Respondents timely motion for ADA accommodation. The Court is required t0 hold fair hearings and to provide parity 0f hearing and understanding the proceedings equally. DOES DUE PROCESS REQUmE THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER FOR LACK 0F JURISDICTION, AND THE COURT ACTED OUTSIDE OF ITS LEGAL POWERS? RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH l'REJUDlCE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 _3_ 4:. O\U’l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yes. The Court’s order becomes invalid and must be dismissed. The Court has long past lost its discretionary powers t0 extend the original temporary order, t0 be used specifically for continuances, because so much time has passed that it would be an unfair, prej udicial and unduly court requirement. DOES THE REGISTRAR 0F ACTIONS PROVIDE ANY PROOF OF NOTICE OR A SHORTENING OF TIME FOR NOTICE? The Registrar of Actions shows the court did 1) Not issue its ruling 0n the Respondents ADA Accommodation Request, did 2) Not issue a ruling shortening time, and the C0urt did 3) Not issue a continuance and provide notice to the Respondent party only. Proof in the Registrar of Actions shows notice went to the Petitioner, the Protected Party having more than 5 days as required and wrote the court opting out of being present for cross examination at the hearing. The Protected Party did go into work that day. The Registrar 0f Actions also confirms the Court was not compliant, failed t0 provide equal legal notice to the Respondent, written notice mailed t0 the Respondent 0r actual notice. If the Court had mailed the notice, it would not have reached the Respondent. The address the court used, was the address to the Respondents parking space. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF SUFFERAGE? The City 0fLos Altos has failed to present any employee who has suffered unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence, or a credible threat of violence which can reasonably be construed to be caricd out or t0 have been canied out at the workplace. RESPONDENT'S Ex PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IIN THE ALTERNA’I‘IVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. Ciry oflfls Altos v. Arthur Master, Supcn’or Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -9- DOES CCP §527.8(d). require applicable only to actions at the employee’s workplace (2) By its terms, CCP §527.8 is applicable only t0 actions at the employee’s workplace, not his or her home. City of Los Angeles v Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 625-627, 37 CR3d 632 (noting that employee could seek his or her own order against harassment at his 0r her home under CCP §527.6). DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO BE THE EMPLOYER OF A PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE 0R A CREDIBLE THREAT OF VIOLENCE. CCP §527.8(A). SEE §20.30. Yes. The Petitioner can only be the employer. The Protected Party must have suffered unlawfifl violence 0r a credible threat of violence, and at the workplace. DOES CCP §527.8(D). §20.6. PROHIBIT THE COURT FROM AN ORDER PROVIDING RELIEF, TEMPORARY OR OTHERWISE, IF THE CONDUCT ABOUT WHICH THE PETITIONER IS COMPLAINING DOES NOT MEET THIS STATUTORY DEFINITION, AND THAT THE PETITIONER WILL SUFFER GREAT OR IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE TRO IS NOT GRANTED. CCP §527.8(D). SEE §20.7. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful workplace violence has occurred at the workplace, the Los Altos Police Department, it should issue the requested order. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21CH009797 _10w DOES CCP §527.8(D). REQUIRES ANY STATENIENT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD PLACE A REASONABLE PERSON IN FEAR OF HIS OR HER SAFETY THAT THIS CONDUCT DID, IN FACT, CAUSE THE PETITIONER SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THE DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO PROVE THE EMPLOYEE WAS SUBJECT TO UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE? Yes. a) past violence; assault, battery and stalking, at the work place, or b) a threat of violence; assault, battery and stalking, or willful statement that conveys the threat and use 0f the words of a threat, t0 take place at the workplace, c) the employer must show a course of conduct did actually cause the employee substantial emotional distress and the course of conduct happened at the workplace. CCP §527.6(b)(3). WHO MAY SEEK RELIEF Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat 0f violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or t0 have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a TRO and an order after hearing 0n behalf 0f the employee and, at the discretion of the court, on behalf 0f any number of other employees at the workplace and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces of the employer. CCP §527.8(a). RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH I’REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City Oflos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Coun 0f California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -11- .p N.IONU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DID PETITIONERS BEHAVE LIKE BAD ACTORS TO ENSURE THE RESPONDENT WOULD NOT PRESENT AN OPPOSITION TO THEIR APPLICATION WHICH WAS WITHOUT VIOLENCE, THREATS, AND THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT EVER BEEN TO THE WORKPLACE? After illegally using Los Altos City Investigator and seven (7) police officers to surveil a private citizen for two months and in order t0 advance and create cause for a Workplace Violence Prevention TRO, and paid officers t0 write afiidavits with false allegations, then the City Manager, The Petitioner, misdirected the Court by listing the Respondents address as being in Hayward, CA on its cover sheet. Then the Petitioner misdirected the court a second time, listing the address on its proof of service as the Respondents parking space. (2280 W E1 Camino Real, Garage Parking Space, G34, Mountain View, CA 95038) The actual address is 2260 W E1 Camino Real, Apt 1101, Mountain View, CA 94040 The building number (2280) 1) Was incorrect, 2) The apartment number was omitted, and 3) the zip code 95038 is the zip code for Morgan Hill, the city where the private detective has his office. The Petitioner’s ensured the hearing on continuance would be without any opposition, and that is exactly what happened. RESPONDENT'S EX l’ARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (S]LAPP) PETITION 0R HN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HIELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City 0f L05 Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Nc 21 CHOO9797 -12- \OOON-IO‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOES CCP §527.8 PROHIBIT THE COURT FROM ISSUING ANY ORDERS IF THE RESPONDENT HAS NEVER BEEN TO THE WORKPLACE? Yes. CCP §527.8 is only applicable to the employee’s workplace. The Court is aware that the strictly construed CCP §527.8 is applicable only to actions at the employee’s workplace, and nowhere else. COULD THE PROTECTED ENIPLOYEE HAVE SOUGHT A CIVIL HARRASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER APPLICABLE TO HER HOME UNDER CCP §527.6? Yes, by its terms, CCP §527.8 is applicable only to actions at the employee’s workplace, not his 0r her home. City of Los Angeles v Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 625-627, 37 CR3d 632 (noting that employee could seek his or her own order against harassment at his 0r her home under CCP §527.6). IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS EVER BEEN TO THE WORKPLACE OF THE PROTECTED PARTY, THE LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT? AND IF NOT, DID THE COURT ERR IN ISSUING A TRO AND A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER? The Respondent has never been to the Police Department. That fact matches the evidence within the petition, and all subsequent affidavits, proofs 0r testimony in person. N0 person has testified to that being a fact. The Court approved TRO was a mistake ofj udgement, that endorses additional abuse 0n the ReSpondent by the LAPD. The Petitioner and the Protected Party swore under oath that the RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Masler, Superior Coun. of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21CH009797 -13- 45mm “JONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 statements in that application were factual. Then knowingly committed petjury in order t0 cause the Respondent t0 be punished. COURT MAY NOT The court may not issue a TRO 0r an order afier hearing prohibiting speech 0r other activities that are constitutionally protected, or protected by CCP §527.3 (specified acts relating t0 labor disputes) 0r any other provision of law. CCP §527.8(c). COURT MAY NOT Find that there has been a credible thIeat of violence when the respondent has not directly conveyed the threatening words. For example, the Third District Court 0f Appeal, in an employment retaliation case, acknowledged a lower court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence 0f a threat for purposes 0f issuing injunctive relief under CCP §527.8 when the respondent did not convey a threat but merely answered questions put to him by an investigator, and the investigator interpreted his responses as constituting a threat. SHOULD COURTS BE LEERY OF FINDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CREDIBLE THREAT OF VIOLENCE WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT DIRECTLY CONVEYED THE THREATENING WORDS. Yes, and the Third District Court 0f Appeal, in an employment retaliation case, acknowledged a lower court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence of a threat for purposes 0f issuing injunctive relief under CCP §527.8 When the respondent did not convey a threat but merely RESI'ONI)ENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH I’REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTHON T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARI'I'ES. City Oflos Altos v. Arthur Master, SUpcrior Coun of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -14- ©0090 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 answered questions put to him by an investigator, and the investigator interpreted his responses as _ constituting a threat. DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE A TRUE THREAT TO HAVE AN ‘INTENT’ REQUIREMENT IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF? Yes, the intent requirement for a true threat is that the respondent intentionally 0r knowingly communicates the threat; it is not necessary that the respondent intends to, or is able to carry out the threat. DOES CCP §527.8(A) LIMIT APPLICABLE ACTIONS ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER’S WORKPLACE? Legislators who wrote the code of civil procedure limited the code codified by its terms, CCP §527.8 is applicable only t0 actions at the employee’s workplace, not his or her home. City ofLos Angeles v Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 625-627, 37 CR3d 632 DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE COURT TO RULE THE PETITIONER, INELIGIBLE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CCP §527.8 WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION? Only an employer, whose employee has A) suffered unlawful violence or a B) credible threat 0f violence fiom any individual, which can reasonably be construed t0 be carried out 0r RESPONDENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH I’REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAI'P) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court 0f California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21CH009797 -15- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t0 have been carried out at the C) workplace, may seek a TRO and an order after hearing 0n behalf ofthc employee. CCP §527.8(a). DOES CCP §527.8 PROHIBIT THE COURT FOR ISSUING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR AN ORDER AFTER HEARING PROHIBITING SPEECH 0R OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. The Court is prohibited from issuing a TRO 0r any other order after hearing 0f A11 activities constitutionally protected including speech, and protections under by CCP §527.3 petition for redress, or any other provision of law, CCP §527.8(c). DOES CCP §527.8(A) REQUIRE THE COURT TO RULE THE PETITIONER, THE CITY 0F LOS ALTOS, INELIGIBLE T0 SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CCP §527.8 WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION? Only an employer, whose employee has a.) suffered unlawful violence or b.) credible threat 0f violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out 0r to have been carried out at the c.) workplace, may seek a TRO and an order afier hearing on behalf 0f the employee. CCP §527.8(a). DOES CCP §527.8 PROHIBIT THE COURT FOR ISSUING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TRO OR AN ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PRO AFTER HEARING THAT PROHIBITS FREE SPEECH OR OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISWSS ‘WITH PREJUDICE,SPECIAL MOTION '1'0 STRIKE (SLAPI’) PETITION 0R IN THE AL’I‘ERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos 1'. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21CH009797 -16- The Court is prohibited from issuing a TRO 0r any other order after hearing of A11 activities constitutionally protected including speech, and protections under by CCP §S27.3 (specified acts relating to labor disputes) or any other provision of law, CCP §527.8(c). DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE COURT TO PROVIDE LEGAL NOTICE ON THE RESPONDENT PARTY OF ALL COURT ORDERED CONTINUANCES? Service must be made in the manner provided by law for personal service 0f the summons in a civil action. Cal Rules 0f Ct 3.1 152(0). DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE COURT ORDERING THE SHORTENING OF TIME, OR OTHERWISE THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO SERVE PARTIES NOTICE OF A CONTINUANCE GIVING ALL PARTIES (5) DAYS NOTICE? Without good cause showing and the Court ordering t0 shorten time, the requirements 0f service are to be made in the manner provided by law for personal service 0f the summons in a civil action. For good cause, the court may shorten the time for service. CCP §527.8(m); Cal Rules of Ct 3.1 152(0). CCP §527.8 ; Cal Rules of Ct 3.1 152(0). RESPONDENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R JIN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTHL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 _17_ \ION 00 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO SHOW, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT GREAT OR IRREPARABLE HARM IS LIKELY WITHOUT A COURT ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND IS SO, WHAT [RREPAMLE HARM DID THE COURT FIND COULD COME TO THE PROTECTED PARTY, AGENT JESSICA VERNON? The petitioner must also establish that great 0r irreparable harm would result t0 the employee if an order is not issued because 0f the reasonable probability that unlawful violence will occur in the future. City ofLos Angeles v Animal Defense League (2006) 135 CA4th 606, 615, 625, 37 CR3d 632; Scripps Health v Marin (I999) 72 CA4th 324, 332, 335, 85 CR2d 86. DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE THE, CAN CAUSE COURSE 0F CONDUCT UNDER CCP §527.6 T0 MEET THE DEFINITION UNDER CCP §52’7.8’s CONDUCT MUST MUSTACTUALLYCAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS T0 THE PERITIONER. AND CONVEY THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT CONVEY THE THREAT? The course 0f conduct must by its nature cause a reasonable person t0 sufi'er substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress t0 the petitioner. CCP §527.8(b)(3); Brekke v Wills, supra, 125 CA4th at 1414-1415. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMHSS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (S]LAPP) PETITION OR EN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 2] CH009797 -13- For example, the court may not grant a TRO and preliminary injunction under CCP‘ §527.8, enj oining a nuisance without proof that the nuisance caused substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. See Schild v Rubin (1991) 232 CA3d 755, 761-765, 283 CR 533. The phrase “substantial emotional distress? is not defined by CCP §527.8. But in the analogous context of the tort of intentional infliction 0f emotional distress, the similar phrase “severe emotional distress” has been defined to mean highly unpleasant mental suffering 0r anguish “from socially unacceptable conduct,” that entails such intense, enduring, and nontrivial emotional distress that “no reasonable [person] in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” 232 CA3d at 762-763. MUST THE COURT DENY INJUCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CCP §527.8 IF RESPONDENT DID NOT DIRECTLY CONVEY THE THREATENNING WORDS OF THAT THREAT? Yes, the implied threat ofCCP §527.8(b)(2), any willful statement or any course of conduct, require the Court to deny injunctive relief if the Respondent has not directly conveyed the threatening words 0f that threat? DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE PETITIONER TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING , EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATED THE IN THREAT BEFORE THE COURT CAN ORDER [NJUNCTIVE RELIEF? RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California. County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 2] CH009797 _19_ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Without clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did directly convey the threatening words of a threat, the Court cannot issue injunctive relief for the Petitioner. It falls short of the courts “intent” requirement to be a true threat. The Court requires the Respondent t0 intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat; it is not necessary that the respondent intends to, 0r is able t0 carry out the threat.Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 CA4th 1228, 1255-1256, 29 CR3d 521. The Court defines a credible threat 0f violence as being ‘a knowing and willful statement or course 0f conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his 0r her safety, 0r the safety of his 0r her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.’ CCP §527.8(b)(2). DOES CCP §527.8(B)(l); AUTHORIZE TO COURT TO RESTRAIN A RESPONDENT WHO LEFT ONE MESSAGE ASKING FOR A CALL BACK? No. Calling a business 100 times is insufficient t0 restrain a person 0n a Workplace Violence Restraining Order. Without making a credible threat of violence, construed t0 occur at the workplace, calls to companies seeking redress or making a complaint 0r multiple complaints. The phone is used for making calls, and citizens are allowed to use a phone t0 call a business to make complaints free from the company seeking to restrain the complainer. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH I'REJUDICE,SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASHDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master. Supcn'or Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -20- #UJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Even the course of conduct threshold being a series 0f repeated acts is assumed benign unless it establishes a pattern 0f behavior or conduct, at the workplace, such as getting up off of your desk to get water fiom the cooler each time the employee does. Leaving the office or aniving the office timed with a co-worker. When the co-worker leaves the bathroom and each time they do, you are standing nearby waiting. Workplace course of conduct includes following or stalking the employee to or from the workplace, entering the workplace, following the employee during employment hours, making telephone calls to the employee, or sending correspondence to the employee at the workplace, that doesn’t include calling the employee as a legitimate function 0f their job. They must be composed of a series 0f acts over a period oftime, however short, evidencing a continuity ofpurpose. CCP §527.3(b)(1); see Scripps Health v Marin (1999) 72 CA4th 324, 336, 85 CR2d SSW DOES CCP §527.8(D) LIMIT THE COURT’S DISCRETIONARY TO PROTECT OTHER THIRD-PARTY PERSONS, WHO HAVEN’T MET THE RESPONDENT, HAVE NOT BEEN VICTIMIZED BY THE RESPONDENT, HAVE NEVER BEEN THREATENED BY THE RESPONDENT, AND WHO DO NOT WORK WITH THE PETITIONER OR LIVE WITH THE PROTECTED PARTY? The court is required to ensure there is sufficient evidentiary nexus between the respondent and any 0f the petitioner’s family members 0r third panies who are proposed protected persons under CCP §527.8. The Court requires any third party to know RESPONDENTS EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH I'REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER T0 SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTHL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City Oflos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court 0f California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009797 -21- L \OOONQ‘JI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Respondent, have been victims 0f violence or threats 0f violence, live with 0r work with the Petitioner, the Protected Party. The Courts discretion is less-broad than for injunctive reliefunder Civil Harassment CCP §527.6 The Court is prohibited fiom oveneaching when using applying it’s discretion under the Workplace Violence Prevention code. The Court requires the Protected Party to ask for third-party protection and requires a clear showing of good cause, for each protected third-party person by petitioner and the Protected Party. In the Petition, the Protected Party answered ‘No’ when asked whether they sought t0 protect other persons. Without seeking t0 protect other parties, and without any showing 0f cause, and without any showing of cause per individual. The Court then did over-step its authorized use 0f it’s discretion. The Court did err in it giving the Protected Party its honors. That error, signals t0 any reviewer 0f the case, that the Court was petitioned for oth‘er panics and on a good cause showing the court found that the Respondent knew those parties, and committed 0r threatened to commit unlawful violence on them. The Protected party was not in court and did not make any showing of good cause. The additional protected parties were simply listed, and which is insufficient for consideration. DOES CCP §527.8 AUTHORIZE ATTORNEYS FEES FOR THE PETITIONER, THE EMPLOYER WHO FINANCED THE INJUNCTION RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE 0F MOTION; MOTHON T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City aflos Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Nc 21CH009797 -22_ 4; \DOO‘QQU’I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A IN A WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PROTECTION RESTRAINING ORDER? N0. The court is prohibited from ordering fees t0 employers who win in restraining a person t0 protect his employee/s. The Court is required to be motion for the order and the court, in that instance, is obligated to issue an ordering denying The judge/the court issued order pre-authorizing attorney’s fees for the victorious city 0f Ios altos. DOES CCP §527.8 REQUIRE EXTREME PRUDENCE 0F THE COURT, DUE T0 THE FACT THAT ANY ISSUANCE ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR CITY 0F LOS ALTOS, PETITIONER, TRO AND/OR PRO, IS TO READ LITERALLY? Literally. The Court cannot make an error in issuing an order for injunctive TRO 0r PRO. The language 0f CCP §527.8(j) appears t0 provide by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has engaged in violence or made a credible threat 0f violence. CCP §527.8(j) CCP §527.8(e) 72 CA4th at 334-335. Court ordering t0 TRO and/or PRO, is codified to be read literally, the "Respondent committed violence: assault, battery and stalking andfound Clear and Convincing evidence the Respondent made credible threat/s offuture violence; assault, battery and stalking to have taken place, and 0r be reasonable construed will take place at the workplace,” the LAPD RESPONDENT'S JEX PARTE NOTHCE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITJION 0R IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Anhur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -23- IS THE STANDARD REQUIRED OF CCP §527.8 , IS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE PETITIONER MUST SHOW IRREPARABLE HARM IS LIKELY TO OCCUR ABSENT THE ORDER. The petitioner must also establish that great or irreparable harm would result t0 the petitioner if an order is not issued because 0f the reasonable probability that unlawful violence will occur in the future. IF THE CONDUCT THE PETITIONER HAS ALLEGED, 1) UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE COMNIITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, 0N THE EMPLOYEE, AND 2) THE THREAT OF UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE THREATENED BY THE RESPONDENT 0N THE EMPLOYEE, BOTH ACTS REASONABLY CONTRUED TO MEAN AT THE 3) WORKPLACE, 0R HAPPENED AT THE WORKPLACE, WORKPLACE IS THE LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT... AND THAT WAS THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE PETITIONERS CASE, THEN FAILS TO MEET THE STATUATORY DEFINITION UNDER CCP §527.8 CAN THE COURT ORDER INJUCTIVE RELIEF SOLELY ON THE ALLEGATION, WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF A CHECK MARK? RESI'ONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO DISMISS \VITH l’REJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master. Superior Court of California. County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -24- If the conduct about which the petitioner is complaining does not meet this statutory definition, the court may not provide relief, temporary 0r otherwise. CCP §527.8(b)(2), (b)(7). See §2o.32. ARE THE WORKMATES OF ALL PROTECTED PARTIES UNDER CCP §527.8 GIVEN THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDITION T0 FILE ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER AND THEN AUTHORIZED TO MEET AND NEGOCATE WITH THE DA, TRADING ONE PROSECUTABLE CASE FOR THEIR CASE ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF A PRO? The penalties for any intentional disobedience 0f any TRO or order after hearing granted under CCP §527.8 arc the same as for any willful disobedience of a TRO or order granted under CCP §527.6. See CCP §527.8(t); discussion in §2o.25. DOES CCP §527.8 PROVIDE THE REPONSDENT WITH ANY PROTECTIONS TO PREVENT POLICE OFFICER AND POLICE DEPARTMENT MISCONDUCT AND DOES CCP §527.8 OFFER THE RESPONDENT A PATHWAY FOR I-IELP WHEN AN OFFICER, OR A GROUP OF OFFICERS, OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABUSES THEIR JURISDICTION AS RETALIATION. RESPONDENT‘S EX PARTE NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, SPECIAL MOTION T0 STRIKE (SLAPP) PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARHTES. City ofLOS Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21CH009’797 -25- [\J *JONUI-bw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The penalties for any intentional disobedience 0f any TRO 0r order after hearing granted under CCP §527.8 are the same as for any willfill disobedience 0f a TRO or order granted under CCP §527.6. See CCP §527.8(t); discussion in §20.25. RESPONDENT'S EX PARTE NOTHCE 0F MOTION; MOTHON T0 DISMISS WITH PREJUDHCE, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPI’) I'ETITHON OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNTIL HEARINGS CAN BE HELD AND THE COURT HEARS FROM BOTH PARITES. City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clam, Case Ne 2] CH009797 -26- Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 2:38 PM From: "Tabitha Jacobson“ To: “arthur master" Subject: RE: RE: Report Request for Case 2043934 Good afternoon Mn: Master, Thank you for your matlence in this u‘equest lon‘ flncident LZODQZlUUB. This ls a Call Service incident onny, meaning that no case was taken. Therefore there is no repo: avaliable. Per California Government Code 6254““)(2), I am aflluwed to refiaase the lomowlng Information on Caflls for Service: 1.. Date and Time of Call: September 21, 2020 at 09:1?:28 noun: (9:17am) 2. Nature of Call: Disturbance Cafll 3. Location of Occurrence: 4800 Ea Cannino Real, Lns Altos Whole Fonds 4. Time of Police Response: 09:21:28 hows (9:21 am] 5. Officers Involved: Agent Vernon, Agent Werner, Officer Friebea 6. General Description ol‘: Injmriesmo infimrias. Weaponsmo weapons. Pmpert perErty floss 7. Adult Arrestee Inturmation: NO arrests B. Dfispusltion of Call: Ctearedfnn report taken 9. Name and age of Victim: No victim 10. Factual circumstances or Cam: passerby called n'n male yelling at people CEMII‘IIV Iif YOU have any Wither questiflns, YOU] Cfll‘l COH‘RBCE me 3t 650°219°4534u Warm regards, Tabitha Jacobson 550°947=2834 IA. A T-‘- .1-~T .«L..,~ 44101;..... z _, L ..J :CguAhT-a :LLiJk- _a\J; 030.947.2334 F3;ms:rm IIJCDiJ! Cull}; D HJDETLBC'? ‘c‘.'-'.='J:1 aholyckcesig 10 l2 l3 14 15 16 17 18 .19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I True copies of those communications will be given t0 the court at any scheduled hearing. The bad actors bantering their illegal surveillance of Master and family for 45 days was the City Manager; the City Attorney, Chiefo’fm Andy Galea, the private attorneys representing the City 0f Los Altos and a C' 0 Los Altos Investigator. TheCOm order after hearing prohibiting speech or other activities that are consti ' I , or protected by CCP §527.3 (specified acts relating to labor disputes)oWMmm). This applicmiamisbaseigmhe-daemma-ef-M’Lhur Mastermdjupportingmemorandumfl ‘ * served and [led herew‘ e herein,.and on such oral and documentary evidencwmmmfieamficmion. Dated: Novembng, 2021. ‘/ M Arthur Master, In Pro Per I. MOTION TO STRIKE Anti - S.L.A.A.P. Respondent, Master Moves to Strike. Challenges City of Los Altos, Asserting Conduct Was in Furtherance 0f his Right t0 Petition and Free Speech in Connection with a Public Issue. _ 7 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 J..1. 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Respondent contends the City's workplace violence petition is not a civil enforcement actions within the meaning of section 425.1 6, subdivision (d), and are therefore subj ect to a special motion to strike; the City’s petition arises from acts by the Respondent in furtherance of his right of petition or fiee speech under the United States and California Constitutioné in connection with a public issue; and Whereas the City ofLos Altos failed to introduce éfidenéevdf. any unlawful violence 0r credible threat 0f violence against the Respondent that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace. The City of Los Altos Fails t'o’Pr'e'S'cnt Evidence Re-Sp-bfidcfit Convevgdfiny, or_,a single- Credible Threat of Violence. The City's Petition fails because the‘ city prese'ntlcdnno evidence file Réspondent conveyed a credible threat 0f violence that can reasonably be construed to be carried out at the workplace. Nothing in the testimony 0f witnesses on March 24, 2021 or the exhibits submitted on behalf of the City of Los Altos, in anyway suggests violence will occur at Vemon’s workplace, an essential requirement for an injunction under section 527.8 . ( Scripps Health, supra, 72 Cal.App.4tl1 at pp. 333-334.) The City 0f Los Altos Fails t0 present prima facie evidence 0f Past Violence 0r any threat 0f Violence, Now or in The Future, and T0 Be Carried Out by the Respondent at the Los Altos Police Department The City 0f Los Altos, and the Protected Party, Mrs. Jessica Vernon, checked every box 0n the court’s application for and petition for a Workplace Violence Prevention Restraining Order. Questions 5 through Questions 8. _ 8 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 1 They indicated that the Respondent had previously assaulted, battered, and stalked the 2 Protected Party, Officer Jessica Vernon, at the Protected party’s workplace, which is the Los Altos 3 Police Department. And 4 Whereas the Respondent Threatened the protected party’s with future violence declaring those 5 6 acts of violence would be carried out at the workplace, which is the Los Altos Police Department 7 The City failed to present prima facie evidence of any actual past violence or prima facie 8 evidence that the Respondent made any threats of violence t0 be carried out at the Protected Party’s 9 workplace. None 0f the written declarations or witnesses who appealed at the hearing and gave oral 10 testimony presented evidence of violence 0r anylthreat of violence 1 1_4 12 The workplace is the Los Altos Police Department,_whjch has been closed to none police l3 personnel over the entire time-period of the controversy,“ 14 The Respondent has never been t0 the police department. The Respondent has only seen the l 5 . Protected party tw10e. 1 6 The Protected Party knew where the Respondent worked, what he looks like and it was only 17 18 she, who has committed violent acts of assaults and battery, and those crimes victimized the 1 9 Respondent. 20 Those acts happened at the Respondents workplace which was Whole Foods in Los Altos. 2 l The Protected Party, Officer Jessica Vernon, singled Mr. Master out from across a car parking lot, 22 . spemfically. 23 The Respondent’s employer, co-workers, his partner, customers and two neighbors were 24 25 gathered outside 0f the store and witnessed to the verbal assault committed by the Protected Party, 26 Officer Jessica Vernon. 27 _ 9 _ 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSTNG WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR l3 14 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Respondent did not recognize the officer, n0 matter how she tried to get him to recognize her. He had never seen her before in his life. “Hey Mr. Master, Art Master. You recognize me, right? You recognize me, Officer Vernon. Jessica Vernon. MI. Master, you know who I am right.” Shouted the officer, who was wearing sunglasses at 9:00 am. Then she lifter her shades off 0f her nose and rested them on her head, and her eyes were visible. “You recognize me right? Its Jessica. I saw you were arrested on TMZ. Are you keeping it in your pants?1 say you pull it out, isn’t that why you were arrested. You recognize me right?” The barrage ofunwanted heckling Was. alarming, and n_QtJ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSTNG WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR CAN THE RESPONDENT BRING A MOTION TO TERMINATE THE RESTRAINING ORDER? Yes, either party to bring a motion t0 terminate 0r modify the restraining order. Section 527.6 , subdivision U)(l) provides: "In the discretion of the court, an order issued after notice and hearing under this section may have a duration 0f n0 more than five years, subject to termination 0r modification by further order 0f the court ARE THERE INDEPENDENT BASES ON WHICH TO MODIFY AND 10 - INJUNCTION? l l Yes, section 533 "articulates three independent bases on which a modification 0f an injunction 12 may be predicated--(1) change in the facts, (2) change in the law, 0r (3) ends ofjustice.” ( Luckett v. l3 14 Panos (2008) 161 Ca1.App.4th 77, 85, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 745.) 15 DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE THE FULL SCOPE OF ITS DISCRETION 16 AND Is ABLE T0 EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION UNDER THE LAW, AND l7 l 8 IMMEDIATELY RIGHT A PREVIOUS WRONG? l9 When, as here, a trial court's decision reflects an unawareness or misunderstanding 0f the full 20 scepe 0f its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. ( Cooper, 21 supra , 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 90, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 772.) In such situations, the trial court's decision " 22 23 ‘is subject t0 reversal.’ " (Ibid. ) 24 25 26 27 _ 24 _ 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAHNG ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR l3 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DID THE COURT PROVIDE BIASED FAVORITISM TO THE PETITIONER PARTY? Protected party had preferential treatment. The law allows the Protected Party an emotional support person, when Pro Se. Here the Protected Party had 2 attorneys, 2 uniformed offices and herself in full gear. The equity for the Respondent was the threat to be convicted if his mask fell off his head. The Respondent has only one ear. So physically he then had two handicaps, He could not hear and he could not g0 through his notes, 0r papers since his hands had to keep his mask 0n. Without holding-the-maskion-his~face,-andwithout-thefearto-put-thestrapraroundfihe-maskfallS’off and'the‘ ' threatening Sherriff deputy was serious about the Respondent loosing the case. The hearing with the Commissioner was so biased in favor 0f the police, and anti-disabled, that the court took it further and disallowed the ReSpondents communicator fiom entering the court room, and while the police with the Petitioner, were allowed t0 come and go.. The Respondent did not stipulate and that gave him time for the court to make an order on his motion for the ADA exception, which went ignored. The Petitioner, the City 0f Los Altos, has failed t0 provide any evidence of violence of any kind, at any time, or anywhere, let alone reaching the high standard of the Workplace order 0f, “a clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has assaulted, battered, stalked or harassed the Protected Party. Violence, that threats 0f violence have been made, or that without a protective order, that violence would likely occur without the order. _ 25 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAHNG ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 11‘ 12 13 l4 l5 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘ IS CCP §527.8 APPLICABLE ONLY TO ACTIONS AT THE EMPLOYEE’S WORKPLACE, NOT HIS OR HER HOME. CITY OF LOS ANGELES V ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE (2006) 135 CA4TH 606, 625-627, 37 CR3D 632 (NOTING THAT EMPLOYEE COULD SEEK HIS OR HER OWN ORDER AGAINST HARASSMENT AT HIS OR HER HONIE UNDER CCP §527.6). Yes. Unlawful Violence is any assault or battery, or stalking under Pen C §646.9. CCP §527.8(b)(7). It does not'include lawfiJl acts 0f self-defense or defense 0f Others. CCP §527.8(b)(7). DOES CCP §527.8 ALLOW THE COURT TO ISSUE ORDERS IF A THREAT WAS NOT MADE? Courts should be leery of finding that there has been a credible threat of Violence when the respondent has not directly conveyed the threatening words. For example, the Third District Court 0f Appeal, in an employment retaliation case, acknowledged a lower court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence of a threat for purposes 0f issuing injunctive relief under CCP §527.8 when the respondent did not convey a threat but merely answered questions put t0 him by an investigator, and the investigator interpreted his responses as constituting a threat. DOES CCP §527.8(B)(1); REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY COMMUNICATES THE THREAT? The intent requirement for a true threat is that the respondent intentionally 0r knowingly communicates the threat; it is not necessary that the respondent intends to, or is able to carry out the threat. _ 26 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 DOES CCP §527.8(B)(1); DEFINE STALKJNG As BY ANY MEANS? Stalking by any means, following t0 0r from the workplace. Course 0f conduct is a pattern of conduct composed 0f a series of acts over a period oftime, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. CCP §527.8(b)(1); see Scripps Health v Marin (1999) 72 CA4th 324, 336, 85 CR2d 86 (order not waIranted based on single threat 0f Violence when there was n0 evidence respondent was likely t0 commit further acts 0f violence). It includes following or stalking the employee t0 0r from the workplace, entering the workplace, following the employee during employment hours, making telephone calls to the employee,-or-sending-coHespondencatmheemployeerbyany-meansincluding-mailrfax;or~email.- ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CCP §527.8(b)(1). III BACKGROUND The Court erred in issuing a TRO, and a permanent order, since the City 0f Los Altos failed to show any evidence 0f violent, which is require. Without any evidence of a threat of violent, zero. Without any evidence that there is a victim, or that any of those false accusations happened 0r will happen at the work place, which is required. The Court did not have jurisdiction, clear and convincing evidence of any 0f the required points of specifications being met, nobody has said, shown or proved the Respondent has ever been or plans 0n ever going t0 visit the LAPD. And for the specific language 0fthe Workplace order, the Court has r10 flexibility t0 limit fiee speech. _ 2'7 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 The Propected party in her letter asking the court to excuse her and that she would not be in attending at the hearing said that she received notice a week before the trial and had actual notice five days before the new hearing date, making the notice provided to her, was legal. In that letter, Officer Jessica Vernon claimed that she could not find a sitter over the time of that short notice. However, she missed the hearing, and still went t0 work that day, which means she found a sitter. It also means the was not living in fear 0f her life in avoiding her court date. Officer Jessica Vernon was motivated to not appear in court. The Chief 0f Police, Andy Galea agreed with the Respondent after he pointed out multiple sworn statements made by Officer Jessica Vernon, prove that none 0f her testimony can be sustained as factual. Any single version and account 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0f the battery she inflicted on Mr. Master, makes and reasonable finder 0f facts t0 conclude, that the other two accounts were falsely made and sworn t0. Officer Jessica Vernon made another similar statement in three different signed and sworn affidavits that are easily disputed by LAPD owns records, that there isn’t a pathway or explanation she could make that doesn’t discredit anything she has said 0r will say under oath. Office Jessica Vernon needs the court t0 take up her narrative about Mr. Master. Vernon says that she was dispatched to multiple calls and complaints where Mr. Master was causing a disturbance at a business. In three sworn statements. Master has not been the subject of a disturbance. It’s a rumor Venom started, and continues to say is true. The worse knowingly falsehood she made about these dispatched calls, is that she was the responding officer, and she states that she was present. _ 28 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR ' 10 Chief Andy Galea and the Respondent have discussed the problems 0f Vernon’s many versions of events material to the case, he has suggested t0 the Respondent to cross examine Vernon in court in her wildly cor1tradicting and plurality of statements, all on the record. Chief Andy Galea has also warned Office Jessica Vernon not to appear in court for any questioning. Without her recanting her various testimouy voluntarily and before this ex parte motion, once she does appear at court, the court may render the entirely ofher testimony as inadmissible. The application is made 0n various ground(s) including the court erred in not providing legal notice of the March 24, 2021 hearing date change. Master went to the noticed hearing on March 22, 2021. The Petitioner listed the Re3p0ndent’s reserved parking spot as the Respondent’s add_r§§s_on_fi ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Petition for the Workplace Violence Prevention Restraining Order. The court erred by not ruling on the timely motion made to the court about his ADA exception. It should have been granted since the court is not authorized t0 create a rule by itself that violates one particular group, and that group is the hearing impaired. That group is Masters group and those Americans with that disability are not included in the mask requirements while Californians are in public. Master was compliant. On March 22, 2021 the court lostjurisdiction t0 hold a hearing 0n March 24, 2021 without the court hearing from the Respondent, and did not have the juristion. The protected party did not show up for the court date as well, telling the court in a letter in the registrar that she had received the date change 5 days before the hearing, but was unable t0 make the hearing, due t0 the distance, and having t0 schedule child care. _ 29 ._ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAHNG ORDER - WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A PEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 Andy Galea, The Los Altos Chief of Police, recommended that the Respondent question the officer about her contradicting testimony made under oath in sword police reports, subsequent interviews with IA and all of her testimony 0n this case. She either was dispatched t0 multiple previous calls where the Respondent was causing a disturbance, 0r she was never dispatched to any calls where the Respondent was causing a disturbance. She either beat thg respondent over her vendetta, 0r because he refused to leave the lobby 0f a hotel, or she got him to first leave the lobby and then the Respondent began a tirade of profanities and without a mask was braying on her face. There are three variations to how within 2 minutes, she ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 began punching the Respondent in the chest and neck uncontrollably, which he was already bleeding from having oral surgery, was dressed in suit attire, and had his hand completely full of large painting weighing more than 30 lbs. Two contradicting sworn statements about how the Respondent was handcuffed, and which version is a factual and legal misstatement, sworn to in her report, sworn t0 in depositions with IA and sworn t0 in this case and throughout the Petition. How does the only officer in Silicon Valley, that spent 74 minutes on a call and another 54 minutes on another call, discussing the Respondents health issues, and while other officers were listening on the recorded line, and for most of those minutes, Vernon was combative and refusing t0 entertain the idea that California’s Governor and head of the health department, did not apply the strick mask wearing requirement on the hearing-impaired population. It was 0n those calls that Vernon found the three page official document and then in her own voice, read it to the Respondent on that recorded line. _ 30 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSTNG WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR TN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15A l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 After those facts were established, and 'self-directed, and the reaffir‘edkflfll‘e’ law, the. Petitioner remained argumentative until the Respondent could not take the verbal abuse any longer. The only police officer in California who has read the law, is the Petitioner. After arguing a point 0f View which did not exist, the Petitioner had to agree that her boss, Gavin Newsom, had wisdom that she did not understand and continued t0 argue her own opinion as an officer 0f the law. The Petitioner claims she had no knowledge of the Respondents medical condition two months later when she needed a reason t0 cause the Respondent pain, and to eclipse her vicious attack. Mr. Master was in a hotel lobby where he lived, it was his home. He was a longtime resident and could not be removed for trespassing, he wasn’t. The hotel never required him to wear a mask, as they knew the law and that the law did not include the Respondent. The officers were trained 0n how t0 protect themselves, by wearing masks. Then there was the Respondent, swollen mouth from surgery, wearing a suit holding large art works. Master was not a threat and did not make any threats. Master could not get withing 3 feet of anyone, the art prevented it. Contrary t0 every version the Petitioner has claimed separately, Master asked if he was free t0 leave, Vernon answered yes. He asked if he was being detained, Vernon answer n0. Master walked past the two officers, the automatic sliding doors opened, there were n0 obstructions. The Petitioner then said, “Everyone is sick ofyour shit.” That’s then she began viciously and violently punching Mr. Master in his chest and neck. During the beating, Master yelled out, “My art” as it was falling t0 the ground. “I don’t give a fuck about your art.” said Ofiicer Vernon. _ 31 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR Body Cam footage captured the two minutes leading up t0 the assault without a cause. It happened exactly as it is said t0 have happened in this motion. The arrest and 5 150 was to hide the assault. The restraining order, to silence Mr. Master, prevent him from filing a lawsuit against the City and department, and it has worked perfectly. The 5150, in the officer’s opinion, was warranted. Mr. Master was not wearing a mask and was a danger to himself and others. In one version, Vernon says Master was arguing and yelling 8 Obscenities in her face. Master never got near her, and he could not have. The art works were 36” x 9 36” putting the nearest he possible space more than three feet. 10 There is every reason t0 say that the Petitioner has lied in the Petition and did not g0 to the l l 12 hearing because she would have again been under oath, and would have had t0 contradiction more l3 than half of her sworn previous testimony. l4 Time is of the essence. The workmates 0f Officer Jessica Vernon want t0 see the Resondent 15 jail no matter the cost, no matter the lie. They have filed seven violations of the order, which is l 6 extremely difficult t0 violate. That would require going t0 the station and flowing the Protected Patry. 1 7 18 The officers who filed the reports had not read the after hearing cour order and when the facts l 9 were brought to their attention the officer said, “Well what you are doing is harassing”. Which was 20 doing nothing. The respondent lives in San Jose, has no interest in the person, just in getting justice 2 l for his brutal assaults. 22 The DA, like the court, reads the first 8 pages 0f the police report and the original TRO and Z: sees question 8, “Assaulted, Battered and Stalked”, “At the Workplace”, Made creditable threats of 25 future violence t0 be committed at the Workplace”. And the DA decides that well the court must 2 6 have sustained those violent acts. 2 7 _ 32 _ 2 B EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAHNG ORDER WITH PREIUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A PEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR lO The fact is, the Petitioner lied t0 get the TRO, the Coufi saw the check marks, and though, “Eh”, looks like testimony, and yet did not read the entire report t0 verify was there an assault, was there Violent, and was it at the workplace. Had anyone checked for the testimony, they‘would have found nothing. The Attorneys life and committed fraud and the court either too busy, 0r just doesn’t mind if the victim becomes the victimizer and an entire police force is in fear that he will come back, a man who has never been there. 2 of the 7 cases are being prosecuted. No violence, no threats, Nothing at the work place. Police say there was a violation, there was not anything, but if there is one more, The respondent will be jail until the trial in late December. ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _ 33 _ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAHNG ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR TN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 1 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION AND RE NOTICE 2 I, Arthur Master, declare: 3 I am the Respondent in this action, and I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in this : declaration. 6 THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS 7 I have not given notice 0f this application for ex part6 orders for the following reason(s): I will suffer 8 immediate and irreparable injury if notice is given, the police will file additiOnal false allegations of 9 violating the court order, and may even claim I was at the workplace. I have never been to the 10 workplace and I live 40 miles away. 11 12 There are 2 0f the 7 false Violations being prosecuted against me, at a great expense and large upset t0 13 my family of 6. If a third violation is taken up by the DA, who doesn’t read the order after hearing l4 nor the allegation, just declares that he’ll prosecute, the Respondent will be jailed for the very first 15 time in his life, and to await trial under completely false affidavits written by the Protected Parry and 1 6 her work mates. l7 18 The facts ofmy statements are self-evident. Did the Petitioner claim in their first filing that the 19 Protected Party was assaulted, battered, stalked and made credible threats 0f future violence to 20 happen at the workplace? 21 If that is true and it is, then where was the evidence in the Petition that warranted a TRO? There was 22 not any. Only gossip about free speech. :: At the contrived hearing, where the Respondent was manipulated into going t0 his hearing on the 22, 2 5 while everyone else was present on the 24, except the Protected Party, who could not get a sitter, but 2 6 went to work. 27 _ 34 _ 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR 10 Still, without the required showing of the law, the court order in the favor 0f the false swearer. No violence, no threat, and never at the required location. That’s just the law, not the Respondent, he won’t need t0 fudge, nudge or misdirect the court. The Respondent, like many Pro Se litigants who have defaults blindside them, intentionally by attorneys. If the court verifies those simple facts, then the court will order t0 dismiss and with prejudice. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, Dated: 11/09/2021 . MM U Signature ARTHUR MASTER, In Pro Per _ 35 ._ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING WORKPLACE RESTRAIING ORDER WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PRO UNTIL A HEARING CAN BE HELD, AND MOTIONS COURT FOR ORDERS TO APPEAR . Request t0 E MOdlfy E Terminate Cferksrampsdare hen; when lormis filed. Workplace Violence Restraining Order ® Party Seeking ModificationITermination a. Your Full Name: Anhur Mmm- b. D Pclilioncr E Respondcnl c. Your Lawyer ([fym have (major this case) Name: Slate Bar No.2 _ V v ' Ffll 1n court name and streel address: Fm“ Name: Superior Court of California, County of d. Your Address ([fyou have a {(nvyer. give your [mavcr ‘5 Santa Clara iIMJmmliou. [fyml do no! have a lawyer and wan! l0 kccpyonr home uddrm‘ private. you may give a dg'ffivcm mailing (I(I'drcsxs' superior Coun. ’ imtcud You (It) m)! have to give telephone. fan 0r e-muil.) 191 N First Street Address; 226:) w m Cmnino Raul ‘ _ 33” JOSO, 9A 95113 I A _ r I F1}! m case numben City: Mounlam Vrcw State: CA Lip: 94040 Case Number: Ielcphonc: Fax: 21 (311009797 E-Mail Address: Other Party a. FullNamc: 'l‘thilyol‘LosAlms b. Address (if/mnwn): City: Smtc: Zip: ® Current Order a_ The current order is a/an: E Workplace Violence Restraining Order Aflcr Hearing (form WV- 1 30) D Order Renewing Workplace Violence Restraining Order (form WV-730) b. The current order expires 0n (dale): 03/34/2034 c. D A copy ol‘thc current order is attached. E Request to Modify Restraining Order :1. l ask the court t0 modify the currcnl order as follows (specify rcqucxled changes rcffcrring m Illa item number in order rim! you mm! (0 change 0r delete): D Check here {Tillers 1's no! enough waccfinyour answer. Attach a sheet ofpuper and wrile "Allachmem 4a -chzwxrcd Changes "for a title. You may uscfarm MC-025. Attachment. Dismiss {he order, 0r set aside order for hearing. Camel] Cad .nww - . fifi‘ffiw 1.3318f33mm Fifimw Request to ModifyfTermmate W600. Page 1 o! 3 °°"°°‘C""Pm”E-§5”W Workplace Violence Restraining Order (Workplace Violence Prevention) Case Number: b. I ask lhc court to modify the order bccausc (explain hcfmm E Check herd ifllwru ix no! enough xpuccflJr your urmrct: stlmch a sheet ofpuper um] write "Allachmcm 4b -Rcuwnxf0r chtwucd Changes "fur (I mic. You may uxcfurm MC-025. Attachment. ® E Request to Terminate Restraining Order l ask thc court lo terminate thc cumznt ordcr because (give ransom bciouj: D Chuck here Iflhcre is no! enough xpac'cflJr your (m_nvcr. Artuch a .x‘heel ofpupcr um] wrilu “A {mchmunl 5_ Rcuxmu‘ m Tvrminate Order"for a (Hie. Yuu may uscform MC-025, Attachment. NIoN Jan‘ry 1, 201B Request to Modifyfrerminate Workplace Violence Restraining Order (Workplace Violence Prevention) WV-SOO, Page 2 of 3 Case Number: Date: Lawyer '5 ”am“ (WWW) Lmvver's signature l declare under penalty ofperjury under thc laws oflhc Slate ofC:x|iR)n1ia that lhc information above is true and correct. Date: April l. 2020 Anhur Muster / u A . W L Yypc or prim your name S13?” your name NMWW ”0‘3 Request to Modifyn'enninate WV5‘JD- Page 3 0f 3 Workplace Violence Restraining Order (Workplace Violence Prevention) For your protacflon gnd privacy. please press the Clear m-aJl« fil rm SHORT Twfiiachment 4b Reasons for Requested Changes CASE NUMBER 1 The request for dismissal of the Petitioners request for a Civil Restraining Order is made on three 2 grounds. 3 4 Does non service ofa court date change require the court to set aside anyjudgement and set a new 5 date for a hearing? 6 7 . . . . . . Yes. Legal notice Is the baSIs for all cases heard In a court of law. Ifthe Petitioner used the address on B the original Petition, then notice would have been returned to them. If this is true, the Petitioner has 9 notice that notice was not perfected. 10 11 The Respondent has not received notice, not received legal notice and has not received actual ‘2 notice. 13 The Respondent and his interpreter were present at the courthouse on the date ofthe trial.The 14 Respondent was not allowed inside without a mask, and his partner learned the case was not on the 15 calendar. 16 17 Does the court’s discrimination, lack of equity, and its silence on the Respondents ADA compliance, 18 which was to be decided prior to the hearing require the court to set aside its ruling, respond to the 19 ADA motion and calendar a new hearing date? 20 21 Yes.The court is obligated to provide equal access to the disabled in order to provide equity to both 22 parties. 23 24 25 25 (Required [or verifiedpleading) The ilems on this page stated on information and belief are {specifyirem numbers. not line numbers): 27 This page may be used with any Judicial Cauncil form or any other paper filed with the court page Form Worm Dy m6 ADDIHONAL PAGE Judma' CGW‘dCOL'Wa Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRCZOt. $31 M0020 [New Jar‘uary 1. 1%7] The court should be made aware of the following facts. The City of Los Altos, conspired with the Chief of Police, Andy GaIea, of Los Altos, to create evidence t0 support a work place harassment claim. CA poIice departments respond to calls for service and investigate crime allegations. They do not investigate citizens are the request of the managers 0f those cities. No crime had been alleged, no crime occurred, and the police department began creating a case for a harassment order, so that the police can have it violated and cause Arthur Master to be arrested. The City of L05 Altos lied to the court alleging the reason they did not provide notice t0 the person they sought t0 be restrained had a quickening and a ramping up of activity which made a threat imminent and did not want to alert the person in advance. The police department have six officers work in various ways at the request 0f the City manager. Alternatingly, officers for over 1 month engaged in a stake out 0fthe home and recorded, documents him and his partner. The protected person, Jessica Vernon, parked and surveilled, parking her police vehicle one and one half blocks away on Distel Circle, next to Carl’s Junior at SOOO Distel Circle, which faces El Camino Real, and the Novo luxury apartments at 2280/2270/2260 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040, unit 3200, the home of the restrained. The couple live on the third floor and have a clear view 0f the street and Carl's Junior. They believed that they were being watched by police, and verified that facts three times keeping officers entertained with one of the two moving around the living room with the lights on and appearing to be talking t0 someone in another room out ofview. The other went down t0 the street, exited a side door, crossing El Camino Real and getting very close to the officers and in order to be able t0 identify them. Other residents notice and a family friend noticed and have given declarations. One 0f those statements includes the person turning into the complex’ parking lot in an odd way, and the officer watching that night, with the car and lights off, Spotted the resident turning illegally and flashed his bights on them, as a warning. Documents describing the officer's findings will be given to the court, and they show the length of time the couple were under surveiIlance, and describes their activities, and officers in plain clothes going to the complex and walking around. The restrained also noticed that his calls t0 the department, were being routed differently and believed it was being done for a nefarious purpose. He questioned dispatch about the unusual rerouting, the managers of dispatch, the chief of police, and all of them denied being a part of an investigation, assisting in an investigation and chief adamantly said there was n0 investigation. Running into the chief on the street, about that time, he asked me for my home address. ”The IA investigation is done and lwant to get my letter out to you today." ln that minute, Master sent Chief Galea an email with the address. That report said to be mailed that afternoon, did not come for another four weeks. The documents l have are very thorough, as the department has access to our DMV details and other records, they used the attorney who filed the harassment case, and other council who were involved in their actions to invent cause. The only caII to the protected party is described below. The entire call, Jessica Vernon’s ; ___outgojngxojcam_ail message and my message left was recorded and will be played in court. These are the true and total words left on that only message made to Vernon. ”Hello Officer Vernon, This is Art Master. Would you please return the cali when you can? Thank you very much." All calls made afterwards were known to be calls sent to investigators. The transcripts of those calls indicate | knew. Comments by the attorney that "Master, repeatedly called again and again demanding t0 speak to Jessica Vernon". Untrue, those calls were recorded at dispatch, they can play them in court, ifthat is the case. Here i5 what my recordings of those calls say. "Helio, Ijust called and I asked for officer Vernon, but | got another person’s voicemail." That call was transferred before | could finish. | called back "Hello, | believe you took my last cal]. Sorry. Iwas trying to reach Officer Vernon, but her voicemail is different. Does she have more than one voicemail?” Nothing nefarious except that on the Citys request, the Chief of Police and 8-10 other officers participated in an investigation into my life, my partners, running license plates, distributing our person details to dozens 0f individuals and they did more. The court date was changed and lwas not notice, and the court won a default. Proof from my USPS mail alerts, no mail was ever put into the USPS system by the court, or the Petitioner. AII mail is photographed. Customers of the USPS Mail Alerts get photos ofall mail entered into the their system anywhere, 3 days before mail arrives. It is impossible t0 the USPS to deliver mail, that they do not have a photo of. Their motto, ”if its in your email, then its in your mail", is a certainty. I have all my emails from the USPS and not any notice about the court change, not only not received, the proof i5 better than that. No mail entered the USPS from the petitioner, no matter what they filed. | have the evidence. I plan to bring all documents, records, transcripts t0 my hearing and to go 0n the record with this illegal activity by the Chief, city leaders, the attorney involved and | expect this will become avery big deal. . MM W710” W 29 Wk She was making me scared, and him worried and she stopped only when Art and Dejan left to deliver groceries. Because she threatened to arrest him and compared him to a pedophile who had co registered, Art brought a newspaper story :o work the next day to show our regional manager to show his arrested 1.0 11 12 13 L: 15 16 17 18 19 20 27 28 was false and another man was arrested those ccimes. DATED: February 18, 2021 Pf , 'x 1 ' A r’hfi/ I'd) J‘r'f‘r/ 1 r' AL, .«jH. L/ L. Muv “1L V“ ZARINA BAKCHIEVA ,« _ 3 _ DECLARATION OF WITNESS ZARINA BAKCHIEVA IINTT LIN“ ”N" . AG‘LSVN mmw'-“ 10 Dejah Kuzmanovic 2280 El Camino Real, Unit 3200 Mountain View, CA 94040 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOS ALTOS, CA THE ASSUALT, FALSE ARREST AND FALSE PHSYC HOLD BY OFFICER JESSICA VERNON ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DECLARATION OF DEJAH KUZMANOVIC wuwvvkuvy I, Dejan Kuzmanovic, residing at 2280 El Camino Real., Mountain View, CA 94040 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 13, 2021. -1- DECLARATION l STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 I met Art Master in San Francisco 15 years ago, when I was there on vacation. I went home to Australia and returned one week later. We have been together as partners, living together and working together. We were residents of Los Altos for more than five months and established legal residency at the Marriot, Residence Inn, before October 14, 2020 when Art Master was falsely accused of a hate crime by the hotel’s General Manager, Haz Shunnaq. Before that day, Shunnaq would tell anyone who asked that we H. 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'1 28 were family. He often joked to me that other guests complain to him that he gives my partner special treatment. That special treatment was given to us by the Assistant General Manager, Jessica Defelice. Defelice actually ran the hotel and had a grasp on every detail. She was a thorough person, followed every local, state and federal law, policy, and ordinance. When we arrived, she provided real notice about local taxes as it relates to travelers and residents. She was proficient with Marriot membership! and membership terms and conditions, which is a cofitractual agreement. Members accrue points earned from loyal travel spend on Marriot properties, and then rewarded with perks, gifts, free upgrades, night and etc. Points also push members through thresholds,.or levels, which require the hotel to automatically upgrade certain members with the best unreserved from without cost. -“-A DECLARATION r’ STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 Points are a‘recognized currency, and taxed by the IRS. We were titanium members, which can only be bested by Ambassador status. For that reason, and policy, Defelice keep us current and provided us with a free upgrade, which took us from a studio, to a two-bedroom suite, and a fully functioning kitchen complete with a stove and working oven. If there were any issues, it never felt like there were any. She handled all issues that came up in every category including billing; reversing double billings, over billings and the ‘l‘l 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reimbursement of local taxes and as well as applying accrued points our membership accurately and timely. The relationship as professional as it was symbiotic. When it was our turn t0 provide excellence, we did. For was her anniversary, she commissioned Master to paint her portrait. And the time and effort he put in, was 0n par to her hospitality. The framed final portrait and presented t0 her husband on their anniversary. After she went on maternity leave, Shunnaq began charging us for local taxes again, which hoteliers are prohibited to do after residency is established. I also noticed variance in our rate, and at fast glace, what looked like a double booking. I decided to reconcile our hotel expenses by comparing my payments to the hotel against the statements provided by Che Shunnaq. When I was finished, I found $1640 in overcharges and non- _3_ DECLARATION l STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVTC reimbursed taxes. I presented them to the Shunnaq and he promised 2 to respond within two days. 3 After three weeks, I asked him if we could meet and he 4 suggested the following day, which was the 14 of October. : Art and I drove to SF, where he had oral surgery. During the 7 drive the GM called to confirm the appointment. e It was on that call that he said to me, “So far I am up to 9 $440 in reimbursements, but I need a couple of more days to go 10 through the rest.” 11 He reiterated that verbal statement in an email, which I 12 13 received during that return driver to our home, thevMarriot. He 14 agree that he over-charged us for at least the amount of $444.00, 15 thus far, of the $1641.00 my records proved [The police department 15 has those correspondence and can confirm this statement]. 17 When we returned home, Master went to talk to the GM because I 18 wanted to check on our dog. He was still under some effects of 19 20 anesthesia, was beginning to feel pain. Neither of us had yet gone 21 to the pharmacy to get his pain medication and antibiotics. 22 Anyone looking at him, with his swollen face, red eyes, and 23 dried blood on his lips, would not have mistaken him as a threat- 24 His tie picked up the blue color of his'dress shirt, and the very :: banana bright yellow slacks. He carried over 201bs of his art when 27 he got out of the car, and was taking it to show his recent friends 23 at the pool. _4_ DECLARATION f STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOWC 10‘ Maybe 10 minutes passed before I got a text from Art telling me that Shunnaq had called the police 0n him. Hy firs: thought was that he was joking but then I called his cell and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I heard the general manager’s voice in the background telling someone else these words, “There is a man in my lobby who doesn’t want to wear a mask and is spitting the virus on me". Then I learned that Shunnaq blew up when Master said the word, 11 12 13 14 15 16 l'l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘Muslim’. This is the second blow-up for this manager, over a single word, that he took out of its meaning. Now Shunnaq is saying Master was using hate speech about a Muslim family that was staying at the hotel. Again, this was hard to believe as he was socializing with the families all evening the night before and I know that one of the family members even purchased artwork from him. Master spends time painting in the area of the community grill, which is next t0 the entrance of the pool. A group of new residents checked in that week, and he made fast friends with them. When they had reserved the pool, they often asked him to join them. The children of one of the families hung around Master watching him paint, and the little girl played with our small dog. -5" DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 I wasn't surprised when one of the families bought a painting of his that night, October l3, 2020. Many people who see his art, ask to purchase one. The GM said no when we asked if Arc could organize a show at the hotel, so art hung his work in the halls and people had a look and many guests bOught his work while we lived there. A hate crime isn’t anything Master could be mistaken for doing. A hate crime isn’t something he would do, and in this case what would be the motive. 11 12 13 1'1 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At a previous meeting, Master met with Haz in his office. He wanted to take our 2-bedroom suite from us, to fulfill a future reservation. We agreed to move, he agreed to move us back after booking ended. Art joked, if you don’t put us back we can sue you. Haz’ reaction then, is exactly what Art described on the 14th of October. He began screaming, not yelling. Ordering us out of his office, using profanity. He later apologized to us both, admitting, “’lawsuit’ is a hot button word for me.” We forgave him, of course. Was Art guilty of a hate crime, which uniquely is anathema to his special relationship to the Muslim community? The answer is no. Other hotel guests that we asked about their statements began brining similar concerns to the hotel management and Haz had mentioned to us that the district manager was on him about not bringing in enough revenue, and was the excuse given when he wanted -5- DECLARATION l STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 our 2-bedroom suite back. How would that DM react t0 so many refunds. Isn’t the mostly likely person who had motive t0 break the law, did so by calling 911 dispatch to falsely report that a man was in his hotel refusing to wear a mask and Spreading COVID. It’s not credible that Master was beligerant, caustic, yelling, shouting or degrading any group or individual. Neither my partner, nor I had motive to argue with the GM. We were getting what we asked for, reimbursement for at least a r... h... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 portion of the over-charges and the commitment by the GM to go check my accounting for additional reimbursements. His admission was in writing, sent from his email account. In it he admitted to overcharging us. None of our overcharges could be innocent, or mistakes, We were contracted at a rate through November 31, 2020. The rate change could only have been done manually and only by the GM. The restarting of taking taxes was also a manual transaction, and had to be done by an authority. With the Jessica on leave, it could have only been done by the GM; When others came after us questioning the continuation of the tax long after residency was established, Haz created two new interpretations of the city ordinance and offered those to guests seeking reimbursement. -7- DECLARATION I STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC One version denied residency status to any guest who changed rooms. A new room is the beginning of a the 30-day period required 3 to re-establish residency. 4 A second version denied residency status to any guest who made : many reservations, instead of one very long booking. 7 The fact is that any consecutive stay, no matter how many a multiple bookings or room changes, establishes residency. 9 A family was falsely evicted the day after I was because they 10 complained about not being reimbursed those taxes. The GM returned 11 25% of the unlawfully collected tax and demanded they leave. They 12 l3 took the 25% and checked out. 14 Longtime residents, traveling nurses and essential workers 15 were found t0 have been paying those takes for nearly nine months. 16 So here we have him admitted to at least $444 of the $1641.00 17 of overages that I found and sought to find more. After the arrest, 18 not only did he evict us without a court order, he drained two 19 20 banks accounts. He did that after he agreed to repay his debt with 21 us. The false arrest covered up his white-collar crimes and 22 empowered him to defraud us out of thousands more. 23 There is no question, he had motive, means and opportunity. We 24 had none. ‘ 25 26 Why is Master incapable 0f this specific hate crime allegation 27 against this particular Class? We carried the Muslim cause t0 the 28 _B_ DECLARATTON l STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC UN in 2017, Master wrote the entire powerpoint presentation which 2 given by the Thailand delegate during a session held in Thailand. 3 Master was a leader in the red meat industry, and was an 4 influencer in the lean meats and muslim-kill sector of the 5 6 industry. He was a leading committee member which wrote muslim-kill 7 guidelines which were voted for and those guidelines adopted 9 nationwide by industry leaders in Austrailia. 9 We were the largest distributors of Muslim-kill red meat to 10 the US, and responsible4for identifying and creating the new niche ll for Muslim-kill and lean meats sector. 12 13 These ‘Slaughter-men’ as they are known and referred to in 14 Australia and New Zealand, stare at goats until the goats faint. 15 The pop reference of this practice is featured in a film staring 16 George Clooney. l7 What is actually happening during that transaction, is the 18 goat trading it's body to be used as sustenance, in exchange to its 19 20 seat next to Allah for eternity. 21 Arts words regarding many Muslim practices prohibit him from 22 being able to degrade a religious group, about whom he could not 23 create something negative used to disparage them. How would ones 24 words used at the UN, be reversed and trivialized as the GM would :: falsely swear to, and Officer Vernon would use to her personal 27 advantage. It did not happen. 28 F9_ DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WTTNESS DEJAN KUZMANOWC 10 11 I did not believe it when Master called to tell me Has was calling the police about him. I heard him tell someone ‘A man is here without a mask and spitting Covid on me.’ Master isn't a man in the lobby. Master is a known tenant who was in the lobby at the managers request and has never worn a mask, legally. Has knows his disability and has not asked him to wear one ever. Has wears a mask religiously, but the night managers do not, and they often have friends and family hang out with them in the lobby, and none of them wear masks. 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H13 statement was infuriating to me. Master hung up to call 911 himself, I went to the balcony see see what was happening. I began filming as police cars began rocking up and parking outside and I say officers walk in. It was a very short time, 2 minutes about that I caught Officer Vernon punch Master repeatedly in his chest, at the time I thought she was punching his face. His hands were full Qith his paintings and other artwords on paper and while she was punching him, cops restrained him so that she could continue. I was 0n the balcony for a long while, Master was in a cop car, and a group of cops were massed together in a group having discussions. A male officer walked to me and said, “Can you come II fldown please -10- DECLARATION/ STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 I walked to the first floor where he met me at the bottom of the stairs outside and gave me a closed wallet, belt and tie, and told me this. “Art will have his cell phone with him. He will be going to the San Jose jail, its just procedure. He wont be booked, he will be released. I was very worried and asked, “So he's being arrested, do I need to make bail?” He made it sound like it wasn’t anything to be concern by, as 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 if he didn't think the accusation was credible. wasn’t a credible accusation, 0r that he himself wasn’t sold on anything that was said. He seemed favorable that there wasn’t a crime, that it was unsustainable- I said to him what is factual, “He is friends with everyone,” and I added, “it’s not possible." If anyone would have said anything about our reservation being crossed out and given to someone else, it would have been me. I wanted to tan, and the only place I feel comfortable laying out is next to a pool. Art didn’t have a dog in that fight, it did not occur to him that Haz was being defense since he was Muslim, because Art wasn’t complaining. If anything, he knew better to have an explanation t0 give me about why our reservation wasn't honored. -11.- DECLARATION I STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 ll I explained to the officer. “I raced home from his appointment to make the reservation I made for the pool at 2pm. We had it reserved. A group 0f four families, each reservation gets one hour per household, and then use the fourfihour block for the entire group and themselves. But we had it reserved. He would not have been mad, he was going to bed. I would have been mad at the hotel. I confirmed our time.” Master could not possibly be mad at the group of families and 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I explained this to the officer. I said, “Especially Art, they (the group) always invited him to pool with them and they just bought a painting from him last night, which he also framed for them in glass. He would not have thought of anything derogatory to say about then or towards them. They ate together, their kids played with our dog, they talked about a lot of things?” He gave the family advice about the hotel, where to find the better rates and he gave them all the information about being taxes. He offered our AAA card number to be used to get a further discount. He specifically told them to declare to the hotel that they plan on staying more than 30 days. Otherwise they will not get the taxes they pay returned unless they declare their intention of being residents first. DECLARKHON/STATEMENTOF“WHH§SDEDUQKUZMANOVKI This is the motive for the GM wanting us out of the hotel where he was collecting tax unlawfully. In my view, the officer could see that I was concerned, I panicked and his demeaner, in my view, was very, very nice. He made me at ease, and I could tell that he wanted to address my concerns naturally. “No,” he said, abOut whether Art was being arrested. “Its 9 unlikely..” 10 11 The officer continued, “We just have to take him to the jail, 12 13 from there he will be able to call you to be picked up in a couple 14 of hours.” 15 He gave me very good detail about where the jail was 16 physically, and specifically so that I could find it. When the 17 conversation ended we both turned and walked in opposite 18 directions- 19 20 Then he stopped because he remembered something else out 0f 21 consideration, “He (Master) has some art over here you might want 22 to pick up." 23 He was right, the art work that he was carrying was on the 24 ground. I walked over to that area and began picking up the art. 25 It appeared to me like the other police were grouped together 26 27 trying to create a reason to arrest him. They continued to meet 28 together, separate and come back tother for more discussions. -13- DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 Those officers, made me feel very uncomfortable. They stopped talking when I moved closer and then the group broke up The officers literally said nothing to me and watched me pick up the artworks, which were dropped at the exact point where officer Vernon began assaulting Master, and the other officers held him in place during the assault. Not one single officer make any attempt to assist me in picking up the art. When you are bending over picking up so many pieces of heavy art, which were very heavy and large, and I was LL 12 l3 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 struggling, the natural thing to do is to offer assistance. They just ceased talking and watched me collect the art, struggle and walk back to my apartment. No officer mentioned a gun, or asked me if Master made declarations about guns or violence, nor did any officer have a single concern about Master’s history of violence or mental condition. I was the only source the officers had to ask about any historical use of violence, weapons or him being a threat. No officer had a single concerned except about what to do since the moment the officer assaulted him. There isn’t an avenue of discussion which is credible, that any officer at the hotel thought Master a threat. Not a chance. He was a swollen, bleeding, anestizid recovering from oral surgery docile person, until the manager began lying to the 911 dispatch. _l4_ DECLARATION i STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVTC 10 Any person who hears another give 911 dispatch false information in order to cause them to be arrested should deny those accusations on the spot. One of the last things I heard anyone say, was Art. “He’s lying, He’s lying," Hg said, and then he told me, “He is calling police to bring guns to a pool fight that Haz is having with himself.” He was right to defend himself, police wont defend a reported 11 12 13 14 15 16 l')’ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 perp, ever. I was with him when he was arrested by Campbell police for exposing his penis. He sat dOwn where he had been standing, and didn’t defend himself, quietly waiting for préfessional police officers to arrive and then he could provide the truth, and he was arrested then too. He told those officers, there are cameras above my head. You don't need to arrest me, that footage exonerates me. He was arrested anyway, against the advise to view the store camera footage, which would exonerate him. That body of professionals, did not seek the facts, they sought evidence to support their bias’ That footage was collected and not viewed for a week. During that week 64 million people were told he exposed himself to a straight man. -15- DECLARATION! STATEMENT OF \VITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC Is it a bias to think the heterosexual male accuser over the gam purported victim? Of course, it is. And in a store where the accuser had the entire store of shoppers and employees watching every move, none of the onlookers saw him take out his penis. What is true in Campbell is true here. It is far easier t0 discredit the only victim than it is to police a friend. The evidence that exonerates art is the footage,from the hotel. If the police watched the tape, they know the manager was the perp 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The criminal is the false accuser, and there are two false accusers. Haz and Jessica. Master did not commit a hate crime, and that is more and more clear, as investigators create or entertain new distractions. I was a witness to Officer Vernon, sitting in the car at Whole Foods, our workplace, when Officer Vernon began badgering my partner then too. She was very loud, angry, and so loud that our workmates wanted to know what she was talking about. Even the store manager questioned Art about the arrest Vernon had barked to the crowd which had gathered. She harassed him at his work place, yelling from inside the first lane of the street out to Master, who was at the entrance of the store. He was standing with a group of co- workers who were horrified. -16- DECLARATION I STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 We had deliveries t0 make and we had to leave. Master was bringing drinks and food to the man in the bus shelter who was screaming and causing a disturbance. The police made it worse. Vernon was distracted from her professional duties and mono- focused on my partner. “You Staying out of trouble? I saw that you got arrested. Are you keeping it in your pants?” What officer is allowed to abuse people like that. Master was the Good Samaritan in that story; and the would be prbfessional ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 officer won the scene was disabled from concentrating on her job, she was so angry at Art and he had never met her before that day. She knew him, by first name and last name. She was like a child. “Hey Masters, hey art, Art Master. You remember me?” It seem surreal, like a set-up 0r a joke. Art sorta played along and acted like he wasn’t bothered. He just didn’t place her, even saying something like he remembered. But when he came back to the car, he said, he didn’t know who she was. “I saw you on TMZ” she said as well. That exact same officer, Art never met, now glaring at me, but ignoring the fact that I am an exclusive insider into the mental state of Art Master. _17- DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WTFNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 All of those professional officers, struck in their tracks eyeing me when their job required them to seek my knowledge and assistance in getting to the truth of that day. We all know the truth. My pointing it out, here isn’t even necessary. Every officer knew who I was, and each officer had their eyes on me. Each a professionally trained police officer, on scene collecting evidence and the largest cache of evidence is me. And each one of them, stared at me, made eye contact and dismissed me 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and any testimony I could have provided. I was not interview by the police in Campbell either, why would they, their minds were made up. I was not interviewed or questioned by the 6 or 8 officers at this new arrest. Why would they, they are only professionals, who huddled and created a mind set to agree on. Why would they dilute that choice with facts from a credible source? The investigator of this case, had my contact details three times. I went with art to interview he had with Captain McCrossin. I heard him repeat facts to the Captain, that he had given that investigator before, in writing. It was clear the investigator never read them. I was with Master when the investigator on a Monday, said he would have an officer call art to take his statement that very next -18... DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVTC day, which would have been a Tuesday. No call came that entire week. I received an email that Friday. Why no call to Master? Why wait and send me an email. Two reasons. He didn’t believe we were both victims of money that our shared accounts and that we were defrauded by Haz, And the email, to create an even more distant, as much as late, contact, which became a diminishment of the promise, reSpect and a reduced call to action. He reckoned that email was a near facsimile of a l3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 call, and to him, just an obligatory check off item of appeasement. It is also my opinion, that Officer Vernon was mono focused 0n October l4, 2020, and very excited that Master was in the unfortunate position of having the cops called on him. It was her lucky day and she took personal advantage of an unarmed, swollen, bleeding, gay man in bright yellow pants carrying original art he created. The accuser, had motive to kick out two renters who had a rental contract too good for them to keep through through November 31, 2020. He wanted to earn more for the low rent they were contracted for. His written promise to repay the over charges, were not repaid Instead the GM used a card never used at the hotel and another card not authorized for additional charges and drained those accounts over the next 20 days. Two senior authorities of the department _19_ DECLARATION/ STATEMENT 0F WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC gave them professional opinion about that too, a crime was not 2 committed. Maybe a civil crime. Maybe. 3 I make this statement on Wednesday, January 13, 2021, four 4 months after witnessing Officer Vernon viciously assault my S 6 partner, an unarmed man, who had his hands full and was held by 7 other officers for the duration of Officer Vernon's vicious 8 personal assault. I will testify to these facts in court if asked. 9 I am the owner of all photos and video taken from the balcony of my 1° home on October 14, 2021. 11 12 13 DATED: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 14 0W 15 chfi: Kufimnow’c 6 2280 El Camino Rea], Unit 3200 l Mountain View, CA 94040 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -20.. DECLARATION / STATEMENT OF WITNESS DEJAN KUZMANOVIC 10 ARTHUR MASTER 2260 W EL CAMINO REAL, UNIT 1101 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA II 12 13 14 15 L6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Case No.: @i Wwfijvr)ARHTUR MASTER, VS. PETITION FOR CIVIL HARRASSMENT ) ) ) ) ) RESTRAINING ORDER JESSICA VERNON ) ) J J J I, Zarina Bakchieva, declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 18, 2021. I work as a picker for Whole Foods packing groceries for deliveries. I work with Art Master and I was working with him and his partner Dejan. _ l _ DECLARATION OF WITNESS ZARINA BAKCI-IIEVA 10 I was nearby when there was a controversy on the street in front of the store. A shirtless man was screaming at people in the busstOp, which drove us out of the store to see the problem. Art asked me to get food. He reasoned the man was hungry and only appeared angry. An officer began yelling at Art for literally no reason at all. When I came back with fruit, he took it and bottled 11 12 13 15 16 1'! 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 water to the man and that’s when she began calling the man an NOOanimal, and telling art not to feed the animals in the She never stopped yelling at him until he left, and the entire time we were in the parking lot, standing together, she was yelling at him, demanding he look at her and remember her. He was not kidding, he did not know her, he literally had no idea who she was. The officer took off her glasses and made a big show putting them on her head and then wanting to know if he recognized her then. _ 2 _ DECLARA'I’ION OF WITNESS ZARINA BAKCHIEVA ARTHUR MASTER 2260 W EL CAMINO REAL, UNIT 1101 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 940402 3 4 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 8 9 10 11 ARHTUR MASTER, ) Case No.: Ll CH’UUQ'] ‘77 J 12 vs. ) i PETITION FOR CIVIL HARRASSMENT 3 RESTRAINI G O DERl JESSICA VERNON ) N R 1:: ) ) 15 ) J 16 17 18 I, Erika Lyons, declare under penalty of perjury, that the 19 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 18, 2021. 20 21 22 23 I work at Whole Foods and with Art Master. I was standing with Art 24 25 when we all heard a police officer yell out Art’s name multiple 26 times and yelled out her name. 27 28 _ 1 .. DECLARATION OF WITNESS ERIKA LYONS The officer was upset that he didn't recognize her, her name, but 3 I she obviously knew who he was. She picked him out of the crowd. q 5 She was rude, calling him a sex offender and telling him to keep 8 his genitals in his pants. She said he was arrested for showing it 9 lo at Marshall's and said she watched it on TMZ. 11 It never even happened; I saw proof the next day. 12 13 Cops cannot harass people like she did, or tell people information 14 15 like she did, about other people, or threaten people with 16 l7 information, especially when it’s not true. People believe cops, so 18 ‘ cops need to be better. 19 2O . I can go to court and testlfy how we were all haraSSed, everyone 21 22 was upset- When she was yelling at Art, she was yelling at me too, 23 24 and every customer. 25 26 27 DATED: February 18, 2021 28 -2- DECLARATKRJOFVHTNESSERHQXLYONS 10 £10134fo gflfl’i ERJKA Lvofi 11 12 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _ 3 _ DECLARATION OF WI'IVNESS ERIKA LYONS l\) ARTHUR MASTER 2260 W EL CAMINO REAL, UNIT 1101 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 l, ‘ JCWDQ'] ”I 7 11 ARHIUK MAbibR, )(xweNog UI ) 12 VS_ ) g PETITION FOR CIVIL HARRASSMENT REST N13 JESSICA VERNON ) RAINI G ORDER 14 ) ) 15 ) ) 16 l7 18 l9 20 I, JULIA HERMAN, residing at 1255 Orleans Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 21 22 . declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and 23 24 25 correct. Executed on February 18, 2021. 26 27 28 _ l _ DECLARATION OF WITNESS JULIA BERMAN 10 I am a student, enrolled at UCLA and live in Sunnyvale with my mother. I was with my mother at Whole Foods and watched Officer Jessica Vernon yelling at my fried Art. He was doing nothing but working and giving water bottles to the man who was thirsty. She acted like he was being arrested, but then Art left to delivery 11 12 13 14 15 l6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 groceries and then she left. I met her again at Thanksgiving and she yelled at me. That’s what I remember about the Officer Jessica Vernon DATED: February 18, 202i - LIA BER AN 1255 Orleans Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 _. 2 .- DECLARATION OF WITNESS JULIA BERMAN 10 ARTHUR MASTER 2260 W BL CAMINO REAL, UNIT 1101 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No; qV‘a6W3q3*b_11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARHTUR MASTER, VS. JESSICA VERNON ) } ) l pETITION FOR CIVIL HARRASSMENT i RESTRAINI G RDER ) J ) J WWYWL 1’ I, Thanai Pope, residing at 1255 Orleans Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 declare under correct. Executed on February 18, 2021. penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and _ 1 _ DECLARATION OF WITNESS THANAI POPE I work as a paralegal in Michigan and I have been 0n the west coast 2 3 enrolling my daughter, Julie, 20, into UCLA. A delay caused by 4 t u COVID 19 requ1red me to stay 1n Los Altos until she is vaccinated 5 6 and able to move onto campus. 7 8 As a resident of the Marriot Residence Inn, my daughter and I came 9 10 to know Art Master who was a resident at the same Marriot at the 11 time that we were. Hy daughter demands I take her to the Whole 12 l3 Foods in Los Altos each morning to buy groceries and that is where 14 15 we see art and where he works. 16 17 In late August of 2020, the two of us were at the grocery store and 18 witnessed Officer Jessica Vernon shouting Obscenities at Art. I 19 2O learned her name later in the year from interactions with her at 21 22 the Marriott Residence Inn. 23 24 I do not like her attitude. Her approach and attitude, when she 25 walks over to normal people who live in the same community with 26 27 28 _ 2 # DECLARATION OF WITNESS THANAI POPE her. It's just uncalled for. She comes across like one Of these cops that enjoys abuses people because of her authority. She yelled at to get Art's attention and shouted rude comments 5 6 about his penis and whether he was keeping it in his pants- 7 a She was in the street near her car, and Art was walking between the 9 10 store and to the busstop on the sidewalk bringing cold water to an 11 injured man. She called Art a zoo keeper for bringing food to the 12 13 injured man. l4 15 Art’s partner was sitting in their car, and got out to watch what 16 17 was happening and was asking him if he knew the officer. 18 Art did not know her, but she expected him to know her. She l9 20 repeatedly said, “you know me. You know me right?” And she 21 22 continued to say his name over and over again and she had it wrong. 23 24 “Art Masters. Art Masters”. She was loud so that the entire crowd 25 arcund the manager to know she was yelling out to him, to embarrass 26 27' ‘ him. 28 -3- DECLARATKMfiOFVHTNESSTHANAJPOPE Art was answering questions from other workers about why he was on TMZ and wanted to know if he had been arrested, because the officer pounded those words at art from the street over and over again. “I saw you on TMZ. Are you keeping it in your pants? I saw you were arrested,” She repeated. He explained that the police exonerated him and a reporter was 10 11 arrested in his place. She didn’t believe it and continued. 12 l3 She was not doing her job. Another officer was at the bus shelter l4 15 alone, while she held back to bother Art. That was why she was 16 17 there. 18 My daughter is autistic, and cries out when she has panic attacks, 19 20 causing some people to call the police to check on her well-being. 21 22 Officer Vernon was an officer who was called about my daughter, and 23 24 I can say that she was extremely unkind and even threatened to 25 arrest my daughter for disturbing the peace. 26 27 28 _ 4 _. DECLARATION OF WITNESS THANAI POPE 10 I have gave a written complaint about the officer to the city police department five months ago, and the department ignored it. I am a very willing person desir§us to appear in person in a Santa Clara County Courthouse to provide testimony to the facts I was present for, my eye witness testimony, and my own experience with this officer. _ll 12 l3 14 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 DATED: February 18, 2021 / /7,7x Z/T/uflf r ” flHAN‘KI éOP’E - 1255 Orleans Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 _ 5 _ DECLARATION OF WITNESS THANAI POPE PROOF OF SERVICE POS-O4O MTORNEY 0Rpm WITHOUT m-roRNEv: STATE am N0; NAME Ar1hur Master Hm NAME STREETADDRESS: 839 Monison Park Drive. apt 102 CITY: San Jose STATE: CA EP CODE 95126 muons No_- 415-317.3230 FAXNo.: HANLADDRESS: artmaster@usa.com AWORNEY FOR (name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F smEEMDDRESSz191 N 1st St, MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODESan Jose, CA 951 1 3 BRANCH mule FOR COURT USE ONLY PlaintifflPetjtionerICity of Los Altos Defendant/RespondentzArthur Master USE NUMBER; 21 CH009797 PROOF 0F SERVICE-CIVIL Check method of service (only one): E By Messenger Service D By Fax JUDICIAL OFFICER: Arand By Personal Service D By Mail E By Ovemight Delivery DEPARTMENT: 50 Do not use (hrs form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3. 1. At the time of service | was over 1B years of age and not a party to thls action. 2. My residence or business address is: 839 Morrison Palk Drive, apt 102 San Jose, CA 95126 3. D The fax number fmm which l served the documents is (complete if service was by fax): 4, On (date): 1 1/17/2021 I served the following documents (specify): Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss, Special Motion to Strike (SLAAP) Workaace Violence Prevention Restraining Order E The documents are listed in the Aflachment to Proof ofServfoe-Cr'vil (Documents Served) (form POS-O40(D)). 5. I served the documents on the person or persons below. as foIlows: a. Name of person served: Jessica Vernon b. E (Complete ifservice was by persona! service, mail, ovemr'ght delivery, or messenger service.) Business or residential address where person was sewed: c. E] (Complete if service was by fax.) Fax number where person was sewed: E The names, addresses, and other applimble information about persons served is on the Aflachment to Proof of Service-- Civil (Persons Sen/ed) (form POS-040(P)). 6. The documents were served by the foilowing means (specify): a. E By personal service. l pemonally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed In item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, detivery was made (a) to the attorney personaily; 0r (b) by leaving the documents at the attomey's office, in an envelope 0r package cleariy labeled to identify the attorney being sewed, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left. by leaving them in a conspicuous pTace in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party. delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger than 1B years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. Page 1 ofS FormAwmvedforOptbml ”5° PROOF 0F SERVICE-CIVIL Jufida! Cound 01Womb _ Pos-oao [Rev..1amary 1. 2020] (Proof of Serwce) Coda 01 Cfvfl PWura, §§ 1011. 1013, 10133, 2015.5; Cal. Rules o! Court. rule 2306 mmcouflSLHgOV POS-040 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: City of Los Altos V. Arthur Master 6. b. E By United States mall. [enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope 0r package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) E deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) E placed the enve1ope for collection and mailing. following our ordinary business practices. l am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. | am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at {city and state): c. E By ovemlght delivery. | enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly uti1ized drop box of the overnight delivery can'ier. d. E By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration ofMessenger below.) e. E By fax lransmisslon. Based 0n an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, Ifaxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed In item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that | used. A copy ofthe record of the fax transmission, which l printed out, is attached. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE 0F DECLARANT) (l! item 6d above is checked, the declaration befowmusf be completed ora separate declaration {mm a messenger must be attached.) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER E By personal service. l personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney pemonally; or (b) by teaving the documents at the attomey’s office. in an envelope or package cleady labeled to identify the attomey being served, with a receptionist or an Individual in charge of the office; or (c) if lhere Was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be Iefi. by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party‘s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. At the time 0f service, lwas over 1B years of age. | am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. | served the envelope or package. as stated above. on (dare): | declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of Catifomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Datei 11/1 7/2021 Dejan Kuzmanovic pa?”KMQMMM (NAME 0F DECLARANT) fl (S]Grflae 0F050mm momev.Jam~1.m1 PROOF 0F SERVICE-CML Paeezon (Proof of Service) 21CH009797 Santa Clara - Civil M. Sorurn . Cinkr dth h r 'fird. Proof of Personal Servuce ° ”mpg 8° ow B" W's e Electronically Filed - - by Superior Court of CAPetitioner Em lo er '® N . _ ( p y ) County of Santa Clara, 3m?“ Cmnosmms on 1115/2021 2:06 PM ® Employee in Need of Protection Reviewed By: M. Sorum Name: Jessica Vcnnon case #21CH009797 ® Respondent (Person From Whom Protection ls Sought) EnveloPe' 5653831 Name: Arthur Master ® Notice to Server The server must Fill in court name andstreer address I BC 18 yours 'ofagc 0r Older Superior Court of California, County of . . . Santa Clara c Not be listed 1n Items , , or of Form WV-IOO. v © ® ® _ l9! N. FirstStrcet o Gwc a copy 0f all documents icckcd 1n© below to Fhe refspondcnt. san Jose, CA 951 l3 (You cannot send them by mall.) Then complete and Stgn this form and give or mail it to the petitioner, PROOF 0F PERSONAL SERVICE Court fills in case number when form is filed. ® I gave the respondent a copy ofthe forms checked below: case Number:0 a. E WV-IO9. Notice ofCourt Hearing “1CH009797 b_ E WV-l 10, Temporary Resn'aining Order c, E WV-IOU. Peririonfor Workpiuce Violence Restraining Orders d. E WV-IZO, Response 10 Petitioufor Workplace Violence Restraining Orders (blank form) c WV-l20~lNFO, How Can I Respond (0 a Pctitionfor F'Vorkpt'ace Violence Restraining Orders? f D WV-l30, Workplace Wolcuce Restraining Order AfterHean'ng g. D WV-SOO, Pr‘oty'quireurms Turnedln, Sold, 0r Stored (blank form) 11. Other (specify): Civil Case Covcr Shccl: Declaration in Support ofEx Partc Application for Orders 7 l personally gave copies om? ggcQImPcrII-tgc fcckoc a oe\'€}611ficerc?o¥1d§1?5ponse by Mall a. On (date): 1/14/2021 b. At (time): 12:59 D am, E p,m_ c. At this nddrcss: 2280 El Camino Real, Garage parking space (3-34 City: Mountain View State: CA Zip: 95038 ® Server's Information Name: Dale Edick for A-TEam Detectives (PI#1284) Telephone: 408.776-2007 Address: PO Box 446 City: Moruan Hill State: CA Zip: 95038 ([fyou are a r'cgistcredprocesx s’ervet): County oh‘cgistralion: Exempt Registration number: I declare under penalty ofperjmy under the laws ofthe Slate OFCalifomia that the information above is true and correct. Date: 1/14/2021 L- ) {MDale Edick ’ Tlipc orprim .s'ciwr ‘s name Sewer rovsr'gn here gunfgg'd‘jgvfjgggf“g°p‘§;g;“;;°""mg°v Proof of Personal Service WV'ZOO: P398 1 0” CW0 0' 0"“ P'm'fi~ §§ 5273- 1°” (Workplace Violence Prevention) |- Printthis form I | Save this form [ ‘EIéEE'tfiTs‘for‘rfi EXHIBIT III Jessica Vernon is a public person who puts herselfin the public eye. City leaders have invested in her and are motivated by that investment and motived by loss prevention and keeping the Respondent from bring a lawsuit. EXHIBIT! Police have never financed, or investigated facts to assist a person in filing a petition for a restraining order. LAPD ORGANIZATIONAL CHART | EXHIBIT II The AAG has Respondents’ full complaint with supporting proof the City order the LAPD to surveil Arthur Master and his family, and to create proof of stalking. Every employee was paid for the testimony and time in court. They cannot start the investigation until the DA considers doing so and declines or does so. The DA will not review the case because there are two prosecutions against the Respondent. Another way the false order prevents freedoms provided by the Constitution Police have never financed, or investigated facts to assist a person in filing a petition for a restraining order. BACKGROUND ON ISSUES FACING POLICE DURING COVID Conclusion police are at low risk to COVID19. Jessica Vernon could not commit the Respondent to a psych ward for not wearing a mask in his home, and she knew the mask law, and the Respondents exception, she read it to him over the phone and on a recorded line, the entire three pages. EXHIBIT Ill She was not in fear of her life, her gear protected her. The Respondent was not near her, had left and after he left, she went after and beat him. Vernon was not protecting the respondent sending him to a psych ward. Vernon knew mental faculties were overcrowded and that those required to stay for 72 hours under the 5150, that none of the patients wore masks. Master was committed into a facility with no protections, over crowded, infected patients as punishment over a personal vendetta Continuance advise by email Master was in Vallejo with his brothers four boys at hospital. Brother had back to back heart attacks. Master left court on Monday March 22, and drove to Vallejo. Checking out the four boys on 03/24/2021 and then returning to Mountain View. EXHIBIT IV On January 14, 2021 Master ran into LAPD Chief who wanted his address. He lied telling him the reason was to send the IA report. From the sidewalk, Master emailed the address t0 the Chief. The Petitioners had Masters address, correctly. They modified the address so as the respondent would not receive notices, which they would claim were mailed. EXHIBIT VI LAPD Records Supervisor emailed proof of Vernon was at the Whole Food store the date and time The Respondent had testified she assaulted and threaten him. It had been ruled as UNFOUNDED, until the record proved she was there and the testimony gave witness. EXHIBIT VII The Petitioner was not eligible to apply for relief. Only the City Manager can authorize the lawsuit for the city and with the City’s approval. There was no City manager at the time, and there is no proof of the lawsuit on the city’s website, which is transparent in all suits voting on each during meetings. No vote or agenda item on this lawsuit. In the contract with Berliner, it stipulates all lawsuits where the plaintiff if the City, The City Council must approve the lawsuit, and the City then gives the manager the signatory right. In this lawsuit Captain Krause, an LAPD employee unlawfully signs the petition rendering the document and suit null and void. Only the employer and petition the court for relief. EXHIBIT VII EXHIBIT | [M1 Los Altos PoliceQ} @LosAltosPD - Oct 15, 2020«figfifiv 23%;}31 #COVID19 testing is taking place until 4:00PM, and there is space for drop- ‘ ins! Agent Vernon walked-in earlier this morning and received a COVID nasal swab, which took about 20 seconds. A quick questionnaire is required before testing if no appointment was made. E? Videos L;_h l M ;_‘ r -r;v "v" E L , U | Tip: men D 1 nr-W bf m 5mm ‘SCC mam ' OD g.) fl me ‘ Uchxl City of Los Aftos Police Department - Tips to Prevent Car Facebook- CHy ofLos.AHos PoHce Deparhnent Sep18,2018 gfiy of Los Altos Police Degartment - Tips to Prevent Car Facebook Oct 15, 2020 City of Los Altos Police Department - COVID Testing with Facebook-CHyofLosAHosPonaDepanment Oct15,2020 Feedback €> \HemxaH City o1 Los Altos Pollce Depanmem Los Ahos Police Department Trps lo Prevent Car Breaking w Tim Gaskin on officer J.- [acebookcum nexldoomom facebook corn pimerestm ‘1 . , v _ ‘ . ._ -.- . I I _ LAPD gems new officers, prumuteS BEICatlos Patrol - Posls I Facebom City oi Los Altos: Employee DIre- Clty of Los Alias: Employee Dire." losallosonknevwm facebook‘corn zoomlnfa.corn zoominfoourn Multiple car break-ins and thefts reported in mg AItQS neighborhoods”W flfiiflmfiam L05 ALTOQ POngE‘_DEI33H1w:_E‘N_T _ v . [av SKIES” 3 Photo: Officer Jessica Vernon Naftfictmafl Pwflfice Week="Why H Wear the Badge” Cantain Scott McCrossin from Los Altos Police Denartment- 17 May 16 Another testimony for National Police Week: Officer Jessica Vernon has been a Los Altos Police Officer for the past 5 years. Prior t0 working for the City ofLos Altos, she served as a Police Officer in both East Palo Alto and San Carlos. She is currently assigned to the Investigative Services Division as a detective. "I wear the badge because I want to make a difference and, whenever possible, help bring a smile to someone's face when they’ve had a hard day. I wear the badge t0 help the people who have been wronged and give them a sense ofsecurity. I wear the badge to stand up for what’s right even when it may not be the most popular stand to take. I wear the badge so I can do things that really matter." 17 May 16 - Subscribers 0f Los Altos Police Department in Safety badgé-2557gggg/ " ; 7 fifth ‘ g WW _ i ¢ __ Crime Prevention Talk On May 24, 2017, Community Service Officer Amanda Pitman and Detective Jessica Vernon conducted a Crime Prevention presentation at United Methodist Church. The approximately 20 women in attendance learned about home safety, reporting crimes, Neighborhood Watch, common scams, and identity theft. lfyou would like to partner with Los Altos Police to organize a similar event, please contact our Crime Prevention Division at (650) 947-2776. nu aflaflzn \Rflnwfllh EXHIBIT IE EXHIBIT IV From: Arthur Master Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:36 AM To: SSCivil Info Subject: Hearing impaired exempt from mask ordinance [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender. | have been barred from entering the court house even though the ordinance requiring mask wearing. Newsom exempted my class of disabled, and l also only have one ear. A sheriff deputy threatened to kick me out if I didn’t wear a mask. They do not stay on my face, due t0 my ear, so l had to hold the mask up the entire time. l have been waiting to hear from the court about my next appearance and | hadn’t. My court case was not on the calendar today as it should have been. My case was likely decided with me there. The sheriff also prevented my translator from entering and the other side, let any of them in. I’m not sure that the court has the authority t0 deny me service which is a law made by the gov. Businesses in cal cannot discriminate against my disability, and | wonder how Santa Clara can. I’m objecting to the courts restricting me from entering and for deciding a case in rny absence. The court has had four weeks to consider my request and the request required a phone contact. Can the court excuse itself from any law which is required by all Californians? Can deputies choose who gets into court with the parties and is it discretionary? lf the rules are objective, then I‘ve been discriminated against on both counts. I object to this favoritism, which drastically reduced my ability to understand the proceeds equally. Refusing my entry, my interpreters, reduced my access to equal justice and limited my ability to equally mount my case. | was uncomfortable having the case heard under those circumstances, and | did not stipulate to a commission. The delay in my case of time, was well worth it being spent on the court, in order that the court contact me about these two issues. My address and phone are included so that the court can respond about the decision of my case in my absence. Art master 2260 west el Camino real Mountain View ca 94040 41 5-317-8280 On Mar 23, 2021, at 1 1 :00 AM, SSCiviI Info wrote: Hello, | am replying from the Calendar Office, we called your phone number 415-317-8280 on March 18th at 2:30pm and left a message. A continuance of the order was filed to extend the TRO until 3/26/21, the date ofthe hearing. Thank you, Civil Division 0n Mar 23, 2021, at 11 :30 AM, Arthur Master Subject: Andy Date: January 14, 2021 at 12:29:45 PM PST To: Andy Galea 2280 el Camino real Apt 3200 94040 Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT VII Sent: chncsdav. June 02, 2021 aL 2:38 PM 1mm: "Tabitha Jacobson‘ dtiacubsuntfillnsaitoxanuvbl ' ' "“Wsr master" tartmasterlfilusa£nmb Subiect: RE: RE: Renurt Reouest for Case 20-0934 Good afternoon Mr. Mastex, Thank you for your patience in this request for Incident L200921009. This is a Call Service incident onw. meanina that no case was taken. Therefore there is no react avaiiabla. Per California Gwemment Code 6254”}{2}. I am ailowed m resease the following infurmation on Calls For Service: 1. Date and Time of Call: September 21, 2020 at 09:1}:28 hours (9:1?arfi} z. Nature ut Call: Disturbance Cail 3. Location of Occurrence: 4500 E1 Carmina Real, Lus Altos Whole Fonds 4. Time of Police Response: 09:21:28 hours (9:21 am] 5. Officers Involved: Agent Vernon, Agent Werner, Officer Frietmi 6. General Description of: Injuriesx’NO injuries. Weaponsfmo weapons. Propurt‘ property floss ?. Adult Arrestee Information: NO arrests 8‘ Dispositicn or- Call: Clearedfnu repnn taken 9. Name and age of Uéctim: No victim 10. Factuai circumstances or tail: passerby called in male yelling at puume Cenainlv if you hava emf Further questions, you can contact me at 55 0-2 19-4534. Wa rm regards; Tabitha Jacobson 650-34?-2834 ~_. . . . 7 « u..- 33 Am n -’ - a ‘ ‘wfimfiy _".-__-'.'.:* -LLTJL- ._;.i‘_ ' 1-5.’ .L ' d'ji’a ?%a-Hm““4" asumvsu“3%W'r. "A “hurt“. 1‘5 3”“; .“ I ‘1 . _ .u‘_-_'n.‘a--'A.'99L m... a'u-Fu 11 K171111133 dRDLLRmCEIAf.’ EXHIBIT V guidance for face coverings 11/23/21, 8:38 AM \O s O State of California-Health and HumanQy/ Services Agency CfiC®PH California Department of PubficHeaHhTOMAs J. ARAGéN, M.D., Dr.P.H. State Pubh'c Health Officer& Director GAVIN NEWSOM Governor July 28, 2021 T0: All Californians SUBJECT: Guidance forthe Use of Face Coverings & Note: This guidance is effective July 28, 2021 and supersedes all prior face coverings guidance. Related Materials: Face Coverings Q&Al Face Coverings Fact Sheet (PDF) [ Face Mask Tips and Resources | Face Shields Q&A (PDF) I Safe Schools forAlI Hub IgMore Horne & Community GuidanceEIAll Guidance [ More Languages Updates as ofJuly 28, 2021: 0 Adds recommendation for universal masking indoors statewide 0 Adds Adult and Senior Care Facilities to settings where all individuals must wear masks indoors t References new requirements for unvaccinated workers in the State Health OfficerJuly 26 Order Guidance For the Use of Masks Background The COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing serious disease. Unvaccinated persons are more likely to get infected and spread the virus which is transmitted through the air and concentrates indoors. About 15% of our population remains without the option for vaccination (children under 12 years old are not yet eligible) and risk for COVID-19 exposure and infection will remain until we reach full community immunity. The purpose ofthis guidance is to provide information about higher risk settings where masks are required or recommended to prevent transmission to persons with higher risk of infection (e.g., unvaccinated or immunocompromised persons), to persons with prolonged, cumulative exposures (e.g., workers), or to persons htlps:l/www‘cdph.ca.gov/ProgramstlD/DCDClPageleOVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx Page 1 of 4 guidance for face coverings 11123121, 8338 AM whose vaccination status is unknown. When people who are not fully vaccinated wear a mask correctly, they protect others as well as themselves. Consistent and correct mask use by people who are not fully vaccinated is especially important indoors. With the emergence ofthe more contagious Delta variant in California which now accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are rising throughout the state, especially amongst those that remain unvaccinated. Despite ongoing outreach and improving COVID-19 vaccine access, as ofJuly 27, 2021, a significant proportion 0f Californians throughout the state are not yet fully vaccinated. The Delta variant is two times as contagious than early COVID-19 variants, leading t0 increasing infections. In California, unvaccinated persons continue to be required to wear masks in all indoor public settings. This guidance is an update, in light of review of the most recent CDC recommendations. To achieve universal masking in indoor public settings, we are recommending that fully vaccinated people also mask in indoor public settings across Ca[ifornia. This adds an extra precautionary measure for all to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, especially in communities currently seeing the highest transmission rates. Locai heaith jurisdictions may be more restrictive than this guidance. 1n California, fully vaccinated people might choose to wear a mask in indoor non-public settings, particularly if they are immunocompromised orat increased risk for severe disease from COVlD-19, or if they have someone in their household who is immunocompromised, at increased risk 0f severe disease, not fully vaccinated, or not yet eligible forvaccination. In workplaces, employers are subject t0 the Cal/OSHA COVlD-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) or in some workplaces the Cal/OSHA AerosolTransmissible Diseases (ATD) Standard and should consult those regulations for additionai applicable requirements. Masking Requirements Masks are required for all individuals in the following indoorsettings, regardless ofvaccination status: e On publictransit[l] (examples: airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares) and in transportation hubs (examples: airport, bus terminal, marina, train station, seaport or other port, subway station, 0r any other area that provides transportation) ° Indoors in K-lZ schools[2], childcare[3] o Emergency shelters[4] and cooling centers[5] Masks are required for all individuals, in the following indoor settings, regardless of vaccination status (and surgical masks are recommended): e Healthcare settings[6] 0 State and local correctional facilities and detention centers[7] 9 Homeless shelters[8] https:/Iwww.cdph.ca.golerograms/CID/DCDCJPages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx Page 2 of 4 guidance for face coverings 11/23/21, 8:38 AM 9 LongTerm Care Settings[9] & Adult and Senior Care Facilitie5[10] Additionally, masks are required‘ for unvaccinated individuals in indoor public settings and businesses (examples: retail, restaurants, theaters, family entertainment centers, meetings, state and local government offices serving the public). See State Health Officer Order, issued on July 26, 2021, for a full list of high-risk congregate and other healthcare settings where surgical masks are required for unvaccinated workers, and recommendations for respirator use for unvaccinated workers in healthcare and long-term care facilities in situations or settings not covered by Cal OSHA ETS orATD. For additional information on types of masks, the most effective masks, and ensuring a well-fitted mask, individuals should referto CDPH Get the Most out of Masking and see CDPH Masking Guidance Frequently Asked Questions for more information. *Guidance for Businesses, Venue Operators or Hosts ln settings where masks are required only for unvaccinated individuals, businesses, venue operators or hosts may choose t0: 0 Provide information to aIl patrons, guess and attendees regarding vaccination requirements and allow vaccinated individuals to self-attest that they are in compliance priorto entry. 9 Implement vaccineverification t0 determine whether individuals are required to weara mask. 0 Require all patrons to wear masks. No person can be prevented from wearing a mask as a condition of participation in an activity or entry into a business. Exemptions to masks requirements The following individuals are exempt from wearing masks at all times: 9 Persons younger than two years old. Very young children must not wear a mask because of the risk o ' suffocation. ° Persons with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a mas L. This includes persons with a medical condition forwhom wearing a mask could obstruct breathing or whc are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove a mask without assistance. e Persons who are hearing impaired, orcommunicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where he ability to see the mouth is essential for communication. rKed bye Persons for whom wearing a mask would create a risk to the person related to theirwork, as determi local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. https:llwww.cdph.ca.golerogramleID/DCDCIPages/COVID-1Qiguidance-for-face-coverl'ngs.aspx Page 3 0f 4 guidance for face coverings 11f23/21, 8:38 AM [1] CDC Requirement for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs [2] Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People [3] CDC Guidance for Operating Child Care Programs during COVID-19 [4] CDC Interim Guidance for General Population Disaster Shelters During the COVID-19 Pandemic [5] CDC Interim Guidance to Reduce the Risk of Introducing and Transmitting SARS COV-2 in Cooling Centers [6] Healthcare settings includes all settings in Categories A and C of State Health Officer Order, including Residential Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health Facilities, issued 0n July 26, 2021 i See: CDC Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations In Response to COVlD-19 Vaccination [7] CDC Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-lg) in Correctional and Detention Facilities [8] CDC'S Interim Guidance for Homeless Service Providers to Plan and Respond t0 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVlD-l9) [9] Refer to State Health Officer Order, issued on July 26, 2021 for definition [10] CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes California Department of Public Health PO Box, 997377, MS 0500, Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 Department Website (cdph.ca.gov) Ml"4°“ '00:, o, Pm! pummes 94.1mm ‘3 Cy 00‘ "1'Accnw“* ofiw ' Ace” i gong . LN“ https:waw.cdph‘ca.golerograrnSICIDIDCDCIPageleOVID-1nguidance-for-face-coverings.aspx Page 4 of 4 .p GNU”: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BACKGROUND Foundation: Police, Justice and Mental Health POLICE WERE UNDER SIGNIFICANT STRESSORS Police Operating in pandemic conditions and their concern about bringing the Virus home to their families, were significant stressors and presented mental health challenges for law enforcement staff. COVID-19 DEATHS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT NEAR EQUAL IO-YEARS PERIOD National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, as ofNovember 2020, reported more than 156 police officers had lost their lives to COVID-19, which is close to the average number 0f officers who were killed each year in the line of duty from all causes over the ten years ending in 2019. DEPARTMENTS MODIFIED BEHAVIOR PROTECTIVE EQUIPNIENT FOR SAFETY Protecting officer health and safety and, by extension, agency operational capacity, as an effective risk reduction, required changes in staffing models, changes in procedures, and the use 0f protective equipment. STATE JUSTICE SYSTEM RESPONDED Police departments used nonarrest approaches to reduce the flow of individuals going into the justice system, including greater use of citations as an alternative to arrest FOUNDATION l DEPARTMENT EFFECI‘IVELY RESI’ONDS T0 MENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS; MODIFYING POLILCY, PROCEDURE AND PROTECTIVE GEAR City aflos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara, Case Ne 21 CH009797 -1- h.) \OOONONLA-bw 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Protecting officer health and safety and, by extension, agency operational capacity required changes in staffing models, changes in procedures, and the use 0f protective equipment. DEPARTMENT CHANGES DURING PANDEMIC - The number of overall calls from the public for police services significantly dropped ° Home burglaries decreased during stay-at-home orders - Violent crime, homicide increased in some cities, such as New York. ° Significant increases in, opioid specific, overdose deaths during the pandemic ° Significant increases in demand crime lab toxicology in suspected opioids overdoses ° Significant increase in domestic and family abuse - Significant increase in calls about people in mental health distress - Social service agencies and treatment facilities have been disrupted, requiring officers to respond t0 such emergencies CONCLUSION Mental health social services were over-whelmed, over capacity due to the stressors 0f the pandemic. Police Departments effectively addressed mental health needs 0f staff, ofiering mental health time-off, therapy and increased mental health training. Police Departments effectively responded t0 staff health and safety issues, specifically safeguards, and training to addressing the facts ofhow COVID-l 9 is transmitted. Departments effectively addressed safeguarding staff by making changes to the ways staff interact with the public; and modified police protective gear for staff that police interact with the public at departments and officers responding t0 calls dispatched into the public. FOUNDATION I DEPARTMENT EFFEC’I‘IVELY RESPONDS T0 MENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS; MODIFYING l’OLlLCY, PROCEDURE AND PROTECTIVE GEAR City ofLos Altos v. Arthur Master, Superior Court of California, County cf Santa Clara. Case Nc 21 CH009797 -2- Contact: Sonia Lee, Public Information Officer Phone: (550) 947-2511 Email: slee@losaltosca.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LOS ALTOS CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCES RESIGNATION EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 5, 2020 Los Altos, Calif. - November 18, 2020 - The City of Los Altos announced today the resignation of City Manager Chris Jorda n, effective December S, 2020. Jordan has been the Los Altos City Manager since April 2016. During his tenure with the City, Jordan was tasked with reinvesting City funds into the City’s facilities and infrastructure. He has been overseeing the design and construction of the largest public facility to be built in the City's history, the Los Altos Community Center, which is expected to open to the public in Spring 2021. Jordan was also instrumental in creating of the Downtown Vision Report and in facilitating the partnership between Santa Clara County and Los Altos for potential development of the first all- affordable housing project in the City. In his letter of resignation, Jordan noted the support he has received from the community during his time with the City: ”The Los Altos community is fortunate to have some of the most dedicated, community-minded individuals I have met during my public service career. I thank them for their support of me, my family, and the community." Jordan also thanked the City staff for their assistance facing numerous challenges over these past 4+ years. ”I have an infinite amount of respect for our staff and pride in my role in leading such an outstanding group of public servants. | thank them for their dedication and support.” ”The entire Council would like to thank Chris for his service to our community,” said MayorJan Pepper. "We wish Chris the best and thank him for his many contributions to the city, incIuding continuing to deliver critical City services during this pandemic. He and the staff have taken extraordinary actions to help our businesses adapt to the unprecedented issues presented by the pandemic- an effort appreciated by our business owners and community members alike." Deputy City Manager Jon Maginot will be acting City Manager effective December 6, 2020, while City Council conducts an extensive search forJordan’s replacement. Prior to being the City Manager in Los Altos, Jordan was the City Manager of West Linn, Oregon, for 10 years. Previously Jordan worked for the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, and for the Federal Government at the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, DC. For more information, contact Sonia Lee at (650) 947-2611 or at slee@|osaltosca.gov. ##1##? EXHIBIT NO THE RESPONSIBILITY 0F THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS MANAGER A city manager is authofized t0 bring lawsuits with council approval A city manager is an appointed municipal official who carries out the administrative and executive duties 0f a city government. A city manager is the chief executive and administrative officer 0fthe city in charge 0f carrying out the policies set by the council and seeing to it that local laws are enforced. A city manager is basically in charge 0f the day-to-day operations 0f the city, including the supervision 0f alI appointive officers and employees in the performance oftheir official functions. A city manager is authorized t0 enforce contracts. ° Exercises general supervision over all public buildings, parks, and other public prepcrties under the control ofthe town. - Appoints 0r removes employees oflhe town. ° the statutes governing second class cities and code cities do not specify that the mayor 0r manager is t0 sign contracts, but that duty is typically delegated to the mayor 0r manager, either formally o the manager is in charge ofhiring and firing all appointive officers and employees, subject, where applicable, to laws regarding civil service. ° Authorized to: make investigations into the affairs 0f the city and any department 0r division thereof and any contract 0r the proper performance of any of the obligations 0f the city; and further, to investigate all complaints in relation t0 matters concerning the administration oflhe city government and in regard t0 the service maintained by public utilities in the city; - Supervises all employees performance ofofficial functions - The MANAGER is the chief executive and administrative officer of the city in charge 0f canying out the policies set by the council and seeing to it that local laws are enforced. The mayor (or manager in a council-manager city) is basically in charge 0f the day~t0-day operations OfIhe city, including the supervision ofall appointive officers and employees in the performance 0f their official functions. 1 'Wo/fWW EXWB‘T .. _ -t.+'d‘\e'. Begin forwarded message: From: Arthur Master Subject: Art Master] False Arrest l False (5150) as retaliation l Assault on Civilian by Police Officer] Denied medication, phone call and never reason for arrest Date: October 14, 2020 at 1:02:32 PM PDT To: agalea@losaltosoa.gov Wednesday, October 14, 2020 | was arrested. | did not Jeam why | was arrested for six hours, after I was transported from San Jose's booking station. strapped to a gurney and then taken to EPS. The receipt merely said, “hate crime’. BACKGROUND My partner and | live a the Marriott Residence Inn, in Los Altos. We have been residents since Juiy 2020 and are booked through November 202D. We travel a lot and have earned so many points with Marriott that we are Ambassador staatus., which comes long after Elite, Titanium. Gold. and silver. Our record staying with Marriott is pristine, we have no blemishes or skirmishes. A perk for our level of membership allows us to book the least expensive room, and get upgraded to the best room for free. After our first month in a 2-bedroom suite, the General Manager, asked us to move into a 1 bedroom. We were affable, he said he needed them for a reservation and promised to return us to a 2-bedroom soon after, and he did not. We talked about it, and he made some harsh comments, and l returned fire with a comment about how easy we would prevail in a limited civil lawsuit. .Haz, leaped up, began waving his arms at me and said, “Get the fuck out 0f rny office!" He later apologized and said that the word [awsuit' Is a trigger for him. He is easy to forgive and we moved on. Two weeks ago, I went over all the statements frorn the hotel and | learned a few things. We were being over Charged on our nightly rate and that continued after we had corrected it twice already, and were some double payments for the same day‘s stay. Still, nothing compared t0 the nightly rate which was tax included, and which the hotel changed us tax a second time. Since we were long time residents, the taxes we paid, were to be returned, and by that Wednesday, the hotel owed my family $1 642.00. We also had asked to move rooms for the past three weeks, since we had a friend who was traveling in the area and he was going t0 stay two nights with us. The air-conditioning in our room was broken, for about three weeks. It leaked water onto the bedroom floor and the water spread all the way across the room. The carpet turned back and mold was growing. There were two other issues, reward points were not being awarded to our account, more than 50,000 were owed and a higher class of membership was also owed. The pool had been closed and it had reopened 8 days earlier. Our reservations to use the pool were not being added to the book and one group 0f people, from four different rooms somehow had the pool for the six hours 0f sun over a five day period. The manager had my bill, for over two weeks. Our friend was dn‘ving the next day, and he planned on meeting me that morning. l had oral surgery in San Francisco, so he asked me to stop by when I returned. Fresh from the doctors, had not picked up my antibiotics or pain medication yet, Iwas in pain and went straight from the appointment to see Haz. There were two ladies who were being assisted and | waited until they left. I was sitting. Haz said. ‘Okay Jets talk about rooms." THE HATE CRIME | asked from where | was sitting, “We are down for the pooI today at 2pm right?” After he [ooked he said were were not on the reservation sheet. My partner wanted to use the pool, lwas going right to bed. | reaHy didn’t care that much, so 1 made a joke. "Tell me if | have the rules right?" | asked. And then continued. ”Only people sharing one room, can book the pool for the people staying in that room. And that's it, nobody else can use the pool." “Yes. That’s right’ Absolutely. No one else can use the pool except for the reserved room only." “Well. for the past four days, four rooms booked the entire day and they shared the poo! together for the entire time." Has asked, “who did that." The Muslims’. Haz blew up. His arms began waving and ordering me to leave. “Get the fuck out here. I will not toierate that kind of language.” He demanded. “lm gay, so Faggot is bad language. How is someone's reIigion a kind of bad language? The situation was benign, and the group of four families and I were fast friends. They purchased a painting from me the day before, and had offered to let me use the pool when they used it. There was no negative intent, nor was there any hate. N0 MOTIVE FOR A HATE CRIME, N0 MOTIVE FOR AN ARGUMENT Has owed us money, a better room and a lot of points. We traded calls and emails that morning about those issues. Issues that he would have to answer to the owner for and if anyone had a motive to argue, it was Haz. TROUBLING CALLS T0 91 1. Has said he was calling the police immediately, so | called 911 as well. Has began lying to the 9‘11 operator. He was accusing me of not wearing a mask and spitting COVlD on him. He knows I cant wear a mask, it doesn’t stay on my head because of my ear defects and he knows the problems | have had when i have gong to Safeway without a mask. It was disappointing that he would lie in order to gain leverage with the police and would lie about something that he know could not possibly be true. There just cannot be an explanation or rationale to his decision to lie. Any employee or any other long term guest, would tell you that Haz speaks t0 me without a mask everyday. and yet there he was using the issue of my not wearing a mask like it was new, or a surpn'se. and that | was spiting on him. | stood in one place, | video taped the manager go bizarre. | knew there were three cameras on me and my best bet was to stay put. OFFICERS ARRIVED “Can | talk to you outside?” Said the officer. “No, | would rather take here.” | replied. This is my home and residence,, | was not being evicted, there was no court order evicting me or for trespassing. Right away, the officer dug in. “You remember me, right. You remember me.” In a tone, and a speech pattern | had heard before. l heard it before over the phone when | called the precinct looking for the chief. A woman picked up the call and explained protocol to me and how she was offering to help. | went along for a long time. The officer was not there to help, she was there to teach, and give me orders. She was there to belittle my health condition and Gavin Newsom’s law. For the most part of the first half, | felt that she was being smarmy. condescending, leading me to her conclusions, asking inappropriate questions, but I brushed each one of them off. Until she finally found Newsom’s law, and then began breaking the law down line by line, asking me to explain exactly how not wearing a mask helps the hearing impaired. The questions were not probative, they begged her narrative and conclusion, which was that she know more than the governor and myself. | was frustrated that she had rne on loud speaker, clearly others were there. She was talking to a crowd, and not just for my benefit. But then 1 embarrassed her. | said a few things about myself which were personal and about my being gay. Soon after she revealed that she was a lesbian. | replied that of course she was a lesbian. The truth was | knew that she was a lesbian and when she asked | explained to her how l knew. Lesbians despise gay men. Gay men had all the privilege and during AIDS we received the sympathy and many lesbian women played nurse to the dying men. There are many cultural divides between the sexes, races, identity, affluence, influence, politics, and as a community leader for over 30 years, [ understand it. The officer said that her best friend is a gay man. There was no love lost at this point. The hours long conversation was her attempt to make me wrong for not wearing a mask, and about a law, she only read that day for the first time. | was there when the law was released and present for many of Gavin's declarations over the years; ;from gay marriage, Care Not Cash, and covid 19. I also happen to be his art commission pick for the Arts Task force, a 12- year position. The officer didn't like hearing this as much as l didn’t like saying it. “Your best friend is gay?, my best friend Is black. Isn’t that what they all say? You have one gay friend, and | am certain only the one." FALSELY ARRESTED BY CAMPBELL POLICE DEPT FOR EXPOSING MY PENIS AT A MARSHALLS. A Vendetta was brewing, your officer and other officers talked about me. When | was arrested, it pleased her. | was working at WhoIe Foods, and saw a homeless man arguing with police. | was hot, he was yelling, 1thought bringing him water would cool him down, and if he were to be drinking, he wou1dn't be yelling as much. “Hey Mr. Masters. You've been to Marshalls lately? “ Said the officer. She was staying behind a police suv in the road and was one of the officers dealing with the man now sitting in the bus shelter/stop. “Yes actually, I had lunch with the manager” | replied. Honestly not knowing who this woman was, or why she yeIIed my name. The video and articles about my false exposure were everywhere. Even the cover of Newsweek and on TMZ’s homepage for over a month. You remember me right? l remember you’”’ She yelled out more than a few times. She gave me the same feeling, that she was engaging me in what seemingly was a benign manner, but she was pissed. l dint notice that right away, but | felt it. She was covert in showing hear anger, but overt in what she was saying. She was asking about whether | was causing trouble or wearing a mask... then | merely defended myself. 1 explained how I was exonerated by the police department and the the victim was arrested for making a false report. She wasn’t buying it. “Yeah. yeah, we talked on the phone that one day. For over an hour. You remember me, right? You remember me? Those words were a mantra, which she used at the hotel.. MARRIOTT Los Altos It was deja vous at the Marriott. A hostile officer, seething, and wanted to speak to me. | asked if talking to her outside was an order, she said no. She was definitely wanted me under herjuristicion. There was no crime, but she seemed to be bullying me. l didn't want to talk to any officer about a crime that wasn’t happening and she was aggressively. She said, "Everyone is sick of your shit"! Where did that come from? Who was she talking t0? Wow! That was a lot. | was not detained, nor under any order. l asked, she affirmed. l said, “fuck this.” She said something and l replied. “Why do you have to be such a F'ing $A#'.". PUTATIVELY ASSAULTED BY SERGEANTI PUNCHED IN CHEST REPEATEDLY Then she assaulted rne physicaHy, punching me in the chest. My hands were full of art, about 30Ibs of art on paper. and she threw it to the ground, along with my iPad and iPhone. Two other officers grabbed my hands and handcuffed me. “That’s my art you threw on the groundJ” | said. “OI don’t give a shit about your art work” The officer replied. The two men took me to a patrol car and left me there for a long while, while 4-6 officers hurled together at the front of the lobby. An officer later came to read me my rights, he said I was arrested. I repeatedly asked him, “for what". “We will get to that” he replied. WHAT WERE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT MY ASSAULT? They took pictures 0f my chesk. The officer asked me about a gun. Haz said l had a gun. He asked me what | was yelling during the the 911 call. l do not remember what | said. But l did announce comments such as, “Yeah, caIl the police. Bring guns to a pool fight." Everything | said is on my iPhone and on the 911 call. VIDEOS AND TEXT MESSAGES T0 MY PARTNER WERE DELEI'ED OFF OF MY PHONE Officers deleted my videos and my text messages to my partner. They left me at EPS without my tie, belt, phone, wallet and money. Nothing was racist. or a hate crime. I told every officer to watch the video footage, what they will see is two guys talking and then Haz begins waving his arms around. That haz keeps coming over to me and yelling in my face, not the other way around. The entire time at the hotel, all offices refused to say why I was arrested. Each said they would tail me later. When the men came back, they refused to say. The offices were packing up, some left, it was time to take me to San Jose, and nobody was telling me what | WAS BEING CHARGED WITH. So l stopped responding to their quetions. In San Jose, the officer's partner revealed that he was on the call when I spoke to his partner. .That is really upset her, what | said. He asked, “you think she has a vendetta ageists you?" He revealed that the two of them watched the TMZ video of my "exposure”. And know about other incidents involving me at Safeway. The officers toId my partner I was being booked, cited and then released. N0 MEDICATION, WATER, PHONE CALL. LEGS, HANDS, ARMS, CHAINED T0 A CHAIR FOR THREE HOURS IN San Jose.. OFFICERS THERE SAID. A DOCTOR WOULD SEE ME, AND THEN AFTERWARDS, MY CHAINS WOULD COME OFF. This happened hours later, the doctor said to me that he was liviid, officers are not quaHfied to 5150 people, and they got it wrong with me. He gave me a phone number of an advocate group who works with civilians wrongly put on a 5150. Said he was sorry, that he cant release me. .He said only EPS doctor could and only after 24 hours of watching me. [WAS STRAPPED TO A JURNEY, while office's were making fun of my yellow pants. may indicated that they gave me medication while l was in San Jose, that was untrue. MY INTERVIEW AT EPS WAS FOCUSED 0N WHY] WAS TELLING PEOPLE l HAD A GUN. I still was not allowed a phone call, except to dia1 my boyfriends number and hand the phone to my case worker. .She spend 45 mins with him on the phone, discussing issues arounds guns. | was finally given my antibiotics, a sandwich and juice at 3 am. Never was told why l was arrested. 5150’s, nor a phone call. When the doctor asked to see me, he too was very disturbed by the officer dispensing punitive justice of the drive and booking in San Jose and the false report of a 51 50. He offered his opinion of those actions and gave me specific steps to take to be certain that the officer is accountable for her actions. My partner was told to wait around and to go pick me up in San Jose. He had no idea where | was until my nurse spoke to him. The police lied to him as well. He gave evidence of the dispute with the manager. that l just had surgery, did not have mediation yet, had my hands fuil with art. He also told the officers that we were friends with the groups of people who are very religious and happen to be Muslim. He advised the po1ice that the group bought art from me the day before. He offer no motive for a hate crime, and said the manager had motive to Rome us. Our rate was very low, and the hotel owed us $1642 and 50,000 member points. The only motive between parties was the manager who would get into a bind with the hotel owner for having to return money to us for over changing us, double caring us on the tax, and for not refunding the tax for being long term residences. MARRIOT RESIDENTS INN - A HOTEL FOR RESIDENTS Officers falseiy told Dejan that 1 could not return. As we are both long term residents that we could not be termed as trespassers and that if our lease agreement was to be broken, it would take a court order eviction. . Arthur Master Iaflhurmagengmgilcom //V / \\ /Jv //: / ‘ l/L/ p K / ‘ 1/ \\ // // i/y/r'f {ifuk/V VJ“. it g, , EXH I BIT Subtitle: /\ . proof of InsuranceeRenTerPlon INSURANCE 50! RENTEES IMPORTANT INFORMATION NOTICE DATE INTERESTED PARTY This policy was transferred to 2260W El Carnino Real, 2/6/2021 Novo 1101 0n 02/06/2021 Primary Policy Holder Arthur Master 2260 W El Camino Real 1101 Mountain View CA 94-040 (41 5) 31 7-8280 anmaster@usa.com Mailing Address (if different from above) 2260W El Camino Real 1101 Mountain View CA 94040 ADDITIONAL INSURED Any new resident must be added to the policy in order to be eligible for coverage. Residents can be added or removed by creating an account aterenterplanLom Dejan Kuzmanovic PREMIUM INSTALLMENT PLAN You will be charged monthly on the fonowing dates: 02/24/2021, 03/24/2021, 04/24/2021, 05/24/2021, 06/24/2021, 07/24/2021. 08/24/2021. 09/24/2021, 10/24/2021, 1 1/24/2021, 12/24/2021, 01/24/2022 Insuring Agreement: Your complete policy will be mailed to you via U.S. Mail within 15 days of the policy effectkve date. The policy Is your contract for Insurance, not this Confirmation of Insurance. Please review all Information closely for accuracy when received. The information given here ls only a summary of coverage to be provided Io you by this policy. We will provide insurance desen‘bed In the pollcy En return for the premium and your compliance w‘rth all provisions of the policy including endorsements; PoIIcy Cancellation: Your policy will NOT amornau‘cally terminate when you moveou‘L You must inform us of your cancellation in writing to avoid any funher premium being bl1Ied to you or deducted from your account. You may aIso cancel your poilcy on-iine at hnps:l/www.eRenterPlan.com. 2270 El Camino Real, Mountain Wew, CA. 94040 Policy fl Effective Dates 0231138127 01/08/21 - 01/08/22 Personal Property Coverage $20,000 Additional Living Expenses _ Personal Llabllity Coverage 31 00‘000 Medical Payments to Others 31’000 Deductible $250 ADDITIONAL COVERAGES INSURANCE COMPANY This company manages your claim submissions. Claims can be submitted by creating an account at erenterplan.com or calling the number below American Modern Insurance Company Claims 1 (800) 375-2075 (Toll Free) NAIC 234-69 Agent LeasingDesk Insurance Services License OD‘l 21 26 Natlee of Cancellation: Your Ieaslng office or aparu'na'n community manager may be notlced of any notice of cancellation or non-ralewal of your policy Premium Installment 0131999: If you have chosen to have your periodic pmmlurn ins181lment payments debited from your bank account or ued’rt card, please note that these periodic installments will be charged to your account mughly 7 to 14 days prior lo your Instaflmem due date. This Is for your protection and allows us sufficient tlme to notify you In writing in the event your account is closed or your credit mrd is declined by your issuing bank PD. Box 1747B, Irvine, CA 92623-7478 Form 001-001 Distance from Resondents home, the illegal surveilance and the Los Altos Police Department Lav "figcw- . v" ‘ )5??? 'L%§zni;‘ ‘4' i A £51k. "itipx 5A» > ‘ . -. ' .V .r‘" ~ ry'fl- -“ \r rkki VI'LV-Mr‘.‘ v“ I.- EEEDIONRQ eI-J ofthe'nespondé'iiiisI'iyiifi'g'iiibii,iiic-heh'sni bedibbiii " CARL‘B WEED. W EfllWW ~ mum) r -- lfiUDMUEfiD 7“436% ‘ '2,- MA/ / I d/ 1 I ELZEQBQEt;\‘j §\ )VEYV$\ ‘- T, RfiwHr~ n V7“-\‘i::§\JL\_\ A:r::fi_ - s-I-IE-ML'rE-n fWM WW7 \\9A Easy . . M .v ; r PROTECTE5-D F . WWW “ ‘ ‘ mama»smuflm g ‘ ‘ u poueemmalg E LEFT THE STORE i __ ' E FEARFuL 0F VIOLENT ' - r - - - Len ms Acme cm. ' our 0F CONTROL . , _ , 7 , , . Daimler m nun! i , SHOUTING THREATS.OFFICER VERNON 1 ‘ IN FRONT OF WITNESSES. APTAIN SCOTT MCCROSSSIN AND CHIEF ANDY GALEA LIEDWHEN IN THIER IA REPORT ECLARINGTHE ALLEGATION THATTHE PROTECTED PARTY, POLICE AGENT, JESSICAVERNON AS ATWHOLE FOODS, WENTTOWHOLE FOODS, RESPONDEDTO A CALL BY DISPATCH TOWHOLE ...... @ARLQ éwmmm MNMNWEE _ @MMNORHHD SPOT LAPD EARNED laiew-of th'e' "BESponilent’s living" room", 'ki-ticjh'ejn and bedroom from-parked-police ca'r 33.80-W El ("aminn Real Apt. 3200. L j}- ??fi‘r a 4:- ‘ - “Whi'tN-i‘ j' , v ' 1“ ‘ ‘In’c‘xj _~/ x,rm» -*~:_a Dec: ‘33:: fl HD"¢h;?n 9w 2-”; ‘- J. firm -/ WE ementary c»: u gm ‘ ~~ :7 ~ _- A V m_w-W J- Q: 1 F A - » \‘ JV‘ i‘r-L-- fa > I , _ A j :vlinA/UL ‘JPfifé‘f \i; 3'5 ’ i ~ :j‘ mg ‘_",_gl_-A‘‘ ":V‘T w 'K < ‘~-'w t;’ \1 21260::W Camino Re‘a ‘ ‘ V 7/ W mag x) .- r“M7 \T” @ifi” ‘C’ f”? LL47: :4W gin WUR‘KQR m ' ~ ' ‘ A ’ x"(c-\\mh D": tance-from Re-sonid-e‘nts home, the illegal surve-i-lance and the Los. Altos Police Department ,. _ . a 7 3 . 1 a l fl d s flw L x t r aw l .. f . . 1 u cm a 1A .. Ni t; Hm . A j . .afi£ . 5 7. I .K .- j ‘ ¢ .. .. . . _ rd . 2. . _. H : u. xx .\ \_ \. : I. a v méx . xv k ; ~ w_ I b . r . , w ¥ :U‘Ka . J C M.“ - ‘ A , . A _ H ~ f ax r \ _ .._ __ .J. . t . l . J . 1 f .. . r .\ O i“ ‘13 I . . ; H , . x ‘ . n f i ? R 3 . 2a g ?Mm i x H w x .7 1. 4 :1: 2 v, . :, Q“ 3. 1% \JM iun zr D9part 'i e. s :”H r , , ,. . w ELmm REAL sir“; D 1 ”-ance. fr; m Resonidein't's home, the illegal. . . \ 7 o __ . fi f _ . V . m a ? . d , : I .TW J { a . M. \ré . .. L a. 3. 3 % - :_ . . I . 1 I L. \ \. J 4 : 1 x fi h l , «x x L I. I. surveilla ncie' .a‘nfid,the L05 Altos P [fad ‘In-u-s L: 3 J ( 3/ 1" ’ .1. 1 L/ J f d- L, ”\f’i M g EXHIBIT Subtitle: POS-040 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: 21 CH009797 6. b. E By United States mail. l enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or pad(age addressed lo the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) E deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) E placed the envelope for collection and mailing. foilowing our ordinary business practices. l am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. | am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at {city and state): c. D By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. l placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regulafly utiIized drop box of the overnight delivery cam'er. d. E By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof ofSewice or be contained in the Deciaration ofMessenger below.) e. E By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the panies to accept service by fax tmnsmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. N0 error was reported by the fax machine that] used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which | printed out. is attached. | declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 1111712021 (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME OF DECLARAN'U (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) (If item 6d above is checked, the declaratfon below must be completed ara separate declaration from a messenger must be attached) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER E By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney. delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally: or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package cleafiy labeled lo identify lhe attorney being served. with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) iflhere was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party 0r by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. At the time of service, | was over 18 years of age. l am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. l served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): | declare under penaIty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 1111712021 (NAME 0F DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) POS-040 [Rev. January 1. 2020] PROOF 0F SERVlCE_C]V[L Page 2 oi 3 (Proof of Service) POS-040 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: 21CH009797 6. b. E By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a seaied envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) E deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, wiih the postage fully prepaid. (2) E ptaced the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. l am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. | am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at (city and stare): c. E By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regulariy utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. d. E By messenger service. | sewed the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration ofMessengerbe/ow.) e. E By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the panies to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record ofthe fax transmission. which | pn‘nted out. is attached. l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 11/17/2021 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE 0F DECLARANT) (If item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger mus! be attached) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER E By personal service. l personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's ofiice. in an envelope or package clearly labeled t0 identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist 0r an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left. by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the pany's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. At the time 0f service, lwas over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. | served the envelope or package. as stated above, on (date): I declare under penalty of pen‘ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 11/17/2021 OESRN Mmmomh amp [NAME 0F DECLARANT) OAIGNATURE OF DECLARAN'D posmo [Rem January 1. 20201 pROOF 0|: SERVICE_CIV[L page 2 of a (Proof of Service) POS-O40 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR N0: FOR COURTUSE ONLY NAME FIRM NAME: STREET ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: TELEPHONE No.1 FAX N0.: E-MAIL ADDRESS: ATTORNEY FOR (name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY 0F Sanla Clara STREET ADDRESS: MNLING ADDRESS: crrY AND ZIP conE; BRANCH NAME CASE NUMBER; PlaintifflPetitionenCity Of Los Altos 21 CH008787 Defendant/RespondentAnur Master JUDICIAL OFFICER: PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL Arand Check method of service (only one):E By Personal Service E By Mail E By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT: 50E By Messenger Service E By Fax Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE 0F THIS FORM on page 3. 1. At the time of service | was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: The Los A1103 Police Department, 1 N San Antonio Rd. Los Altos, CA 94022 3. E The fax number from which I served the documents is (complete ifserw'ce was by fax): 4. On (date): 1111712021 l served the following documents (specify): Resondents Ex parte Motion to Strike, Dismiss w'rth Prejudice or in the alternative issue Order to Stay Workplace Violence Prevention Restraining Order. me documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service-Civif (Documents Served) (form POS-O40(D)). 5. I served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: v“ a. Name of person served: mg M VWQ,‘ r‘hwfw h W444 RV mfidh‘r b. E (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, over’w'ght delivery, o messenger service.) Business or residential address where person was served: c. E (Complete if service was by fax.) Fax number where person was sewed: E The names. addresses. and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of Service- Civif (Persons Served) (form POS-O40(P)). 6. The documents were served by the following means (specify): a. E By personal service. | personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney. delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; 0r (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package cleafly labeled to identify the attorney being sewed, with a receptionist or an individual in charge 0f the office; or (c) ifthere was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years 0f age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. Page 1 of 3 Fm-n Approved for Optional Use ____ Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1011. 1013, 1013a. Jud’rcial Council of Car'rfornia PROOF OF SERVICE CIVIL 2015.5; Car. Rules of Court, ruIe 2.306 P0304!) [Rev January 1. 2020] (Proof Of Service) www.courlsyavgov POS-040 ATTORNEY 0R pARTY WITHOUT AWORNEY: STATE BAR N0: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME FIRM NAME: smEET ADDRESS: cmr; STATE ZIP CODE TELEPHONE N0; FAX "0.: E-MAIL ADDRES s: ATrORNEY FOR (name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFSanta Clara STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CI'IY AND ZIP CODE BRANCH NAME: CASE NUMBER: PlaintiffIPetitionenCity of L05 Altos 21CHODB787 Defendant/RespondentrArtur Master ‘ . JUDICIAL OFFrCER PROOF 0F SERVICE-CIVIL Arand Check method of service {only one):E By Personal Service E By Mail m By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT 5UE By Messenger Service E By Fax Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3. 1. At the time of service l was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: The Los Altos Police Department. 1 N San Antonio Rd. Los Altos, CA 94022WWW Smfivw OJ“ ”V67743. a The fax number fro: whi | served the documents is (complete ifservice was by fax): 4. On (date): 11/17/2021 | served the following documents (specifir): Resondents Ex parte Motion to Strike. Dismiss with Prejudice or in the altemafive issue Order to Stay Workpfaoe Violence Prevention Restraining Order. E The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-O40(D)). 5. I sewed the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Name of person served: b. [j (Complete ifservice was by personal service, mail, ovemight delivery, ormessenger service) Business or residential address where person was served: c. E (Complete if service was by fax.) Fax number where person was served: E The names, addresses. and other applimble information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of Service- Ciw'! (Persons Served) (form POS-O40(P)). 6. The documents were sewed by the following means (specifil): a. E By persona! service. | personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attomey, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the aflomey's office, in an envelope or package cleariy Iabéled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge 0fthe office; or (c) ifthere was no pég’son in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party. deiivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use _ Code Of Civil Procedure. §§ 1011. 1013. 10133, JLdidal Council o! Calflom'a PROOF OF SERVICE CIVIL 20155; CaL Rules of Court. rule 2306 posmo [Rm January 1, 2020] (Proof 0f Service) wmuoourrs‘cagov POS-O4U m-rORNEY 0R pAmY wrmou-rATmRNEY: STATE BAR Ho: FOR COURT USE ON” NAME Afihur Master FIRM NAME smEEeroness: 838 Morn'son Park Drive. Apt 102 crrv; San Jose STATE: CA ZIP coca 95126 TELEPHONE No: 41 5-31 7-8280 FAX No: E-MAILADDRESS: ATTORNEY FOR (name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFSanta Clara STREEr ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: cmr AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: CASE NUMBER; Plaintiff/PetitionefiCity Of Los Altos 21 CH008787 DefendanURespondent:Artur Master JUDICIAL OFFICER: PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL Arand Check method of service (only one):E By Personal Service E By Mail E By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT: 50E By Messenger Service E By Fax Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3. 1. At the time 0f service | was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: The Los Altos Police Depanment, 1 N San Antonio Rd. Los Altos. CA 94022 3. E The fax number from which I served the documents is (complete if service was by fax): 4- 0n (date): 11/1712021 | served the following documents (specifil): Resondents Ex pane Motion to Strike. Dismiss with Prejudice or in the alternative issue Order to Stay Workplace Vrolence Prevention Restraining Order. D The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Servic&Civil {Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)). 5. | served the documents on the person or persons below. as follows: a. Name of person served: b. E (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, ovemight delivery, ormessenger service.) Business or residential address where person was sewed: c. E (Compiete ff service was by fax.) Fax number where person was sewed: E The names. addresses. and other appiicable information about persons sewed is on the Attachment to Proof of Servic‘k Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-O40(P)). 6. The documents were served by the following means (specify): a. E By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the persons atthe addresses listed in item 5. (1) Far a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the'attomey being served. with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or (c) ifthere was n0 person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours 0f nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party. delivery was made m the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening. Pago 1 a‘l J Fm-n AppmvedforOptional Use c CodedCivileoede,§§1011. 1013, 10133. Jufa‘al Council of Cafdomia PROOF 0F SERVICE IVIL 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court. rule 2.306 P0304) [Rev- Jmuarytzozo] (Proof of Service) mmmmmgov POS-040 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: 21 CH009797 6. b. E By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) E deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) E placed the envelope for collection and mailing. following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The enveIOpe or package was placed in the mail at (city and state): C. E By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an enveIope or package provided by an overnight delivery carn'er and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. l placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery cam'er. d. E By messenger service. I sewed the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A deciaration by the messenger mus! accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration ofMessenger below.) e. E By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission. I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that | used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission. which I printed out. is attached. | declare under penalty of pteury under the. laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is tru'e and correct. Date: 11/1 7/2021 Dejan Kuzmanovic mpe 0R PRINT NAME 0F DECLARANI) (3!:3NATURE 0F DECLARANT) (If item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be attached.) DECLARATION 0F MESSENGER E By personal service. | personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney. delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally; or (b) by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist 0r an individual in charge of the office; or (c) if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left. by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours 0f eight in the morning and eight in the evening. At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. I served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): 11/172021 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 11/1 712021 Dejan Kuzmanovic (NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARAN'D Posmo [Rem January 1, 20201 pROOF 0F SERV|CE_CIV|L Page 2 o1 a (Proof of Service) EXHIBIT Subtitle:
