Reply_to_oppositionReplyCal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 16, 201910 11 12 MARK S. ROSEN (SBN 72431) Attorney at Law 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 814 ELECTRONICALLY FILED i A uperior Court of California, Santa Ana, California 92701 County of Orange Telephone (714) 285-9838 08/02/2019 at 12:19:00 PM Facsimile (714) 285-9840 Clerk of the Superior Court Email: marksrosen@aol.com By e Clerk, Deputy Clerk Attorney for Petitioner Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NEIGHBORS SUPPORTING THE RECALL OF ) Case No.: 30-2019-01083264-CU-WM-CJC JUAN VILLEGAS, (Assigned to Judge Scott, Dept. C-15) ) ) Bt y REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO etitioner, y APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE; ) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ) DANIEL FIERRO DATE: August 9, 2019 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT: C-15 V. ) NORMA MITRE, Acting Santa Ana City Clerk; ) DAISY GOMEZ, Santa Ana City Clerk; DOES 1- ) 25, ) ) Respondents. Petitioner Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas submits this reply to the opposition to the application for writ of mandate: 1. History of Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas (hereinafter “Recall Villegas”) is a neighborhood organization urging the recall of Councilmember Juan Villegas. Villegas was elected to the city council in 2016. At the time, councilmembers ran from districts but were elected by the entire city. This will change in 2020 when councilmembers will be elected solely from their districts. (The facts in this section are all set forth, mostly verbatim, from the supplemental declaration of Daniel Fierro, attached hereto.) —1- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Villegas was elected on a platform of supporting tough enforcement of the criminal law and supporting police officers and giving them the resources to be strong on crime. Villegas was a deputy Orange County sheriff. He ran against an incumbent councilmember, Roman Reyna, who had not supported the police. Villegas beat Reyna. More recently Villegas has reneged on his campaign promises. He has not been supportive of law enforcement. As a result, neighbors and others have seen the need to recall Villegas so he cannot do more damage to the city during the balance of his term. Those supporting the recall asked Daniel Fierro to organize the recall. They recognized that they could not take on a sophisticated political action without help from persons who are knowledgeable about organizing. There are few, if any, people who live in Villegas’s district who have this knowledge. Fierro agreed to take on this task. With Fierro’s help, the recall supporters established Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas (“Recall Villegas”). Under Fierro’s guidance, the Notice of Intention was created and signatures of registered voters in the district were obtained. California law requires that when a target of a recall is served with a notice of intent, and the people conducting the recall raise or spend more than $2,000, they must formalize the committee and file a campaign committee formation report with the elections officer (2 CCR §18531 5)3)". Thus on June 17, 2019, Recall Villegas filed a Form 410 with the California Secretary of State. The principal officer of Recall Villegas is Veronica Morales. The treasurer of Recall Villegas is Pattie Limon. Fierro and Veronica Morales took the lead in obtaining signatures on the Notice of Intent. Because of obstruction from the Santa Ana city clerk, they had to obtain signatures on three different * Section 18531.5(c)(3) provides in part: “A person or group of persons who raises or spends more than $2,000 for a recall attempt qualifies as a ‘committee’ under [Govt.C.] Section 82013 when the target officer is served with a notice of intent to recall pursuant to Elections Code section 110217. A committee must disclose contributions of $100 or more (Govt.C.§84211(c),(f)). Members who have not contributed are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure. See in general NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958); Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). _2_ REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 occasions. In each instance, they went door-to-door to obtain the signatures. They then had to serve Villegas each time, and allow him the statutory time to serve them with an answer to the notice of intent. This is why so much time passed between each filing of the notice of intent. This explains the genesis of Recall Villegas. There are many people both within the district and outside of the district who want to see Villegas recalled. 2. Recall Villegas Has Standing to Pursue This Lawsuit. The city’s entire opposition rests on the contention that Recall Villegas has no standing to bring this lawsuit. An unincorporated association has standing to bring an action to enforce the law. Regus v. City of Baldwin Park (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 968. That is a common means of filing actions challenging the elections officer. See, for example, Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 123, 133-35 (initiative measure); Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente (2008) 158 Cal. App.4th 1427 (referendum); Capo for Better Representation v. Kelley (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1455 (recall). In Perry v. Brown (2011) 52 Cal. 4th 1116, 1125, the California Supreme Court upheld the right of initiative proponents to defend their initiatives in court. The court observed: “As we discuss more fully below, in the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate as parties—either as interveners or as real parties in interest—in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored. Such participation has routinely been permitted (1) without any inquiry into or showing that the proponents’ own property, liberty, or other personal legally protected interests would be specially affected by invalidation of the measure, and (2) whether or not the government officials who ordinarily defend a challenged enactment were also defending the measure in the proceeding.” In Perry, the initiative proponents were permitted to defend their initiative because the elected officials who would normally defend it, the Governor and the Attorney General, refused to do so. In the instant case, the official proponent, Recall Villegas, must defend the recall because the city clerk has decided to reject the recall effort no matter what the content of the notices of intention and the petitions. = f= REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION to Regus v. City of Baldwin Park and Perry v. Brown were cited in petitioner’s moving papers. The city has refused to address them in its opposition. Petitioner cited Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners at oral argument, but the city has failed to address that case as well. Instead, the city has focused solely on the word “proponent” to justify its opposition. But that opposition is misguided, both because “proponent” is not limited to the signatories on the notice of intent, and because if it were so limited, it would be unconstitutional. {This issue was also raised in the moving papers, in footnote 1 of the ex parte points and authorities on page 13, and has been ignored by the city.) Elections Code §343 defines “proponent” for recall purposes. It provides: “’Proponent or proponents of a recall petition” means the person or persons who have charge or control of the circulation of, or obtaining signatures, to such petitions.” The term “person” is not defined in the Elections Code. However, in the Code of Civil Procedure, §17(b}{(6) provides: *’Person’ includes a corporation as well as a natural person.” In Elections Code §342, which immediately precedes §343, “proponents” of an initiative or referendum means for statewide measures, “the elector or electors who submit the text” to the attorney General, and, for other measures, “the persons or person who publish a notice of intention to circulate petitions”. The “charge or control” language in §343 is much broader than the language in §342. A different discussion of proponents is found in Elections Code §11005. That statute provides: “The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.” What does “proponent” refer to in this statute? The answer is in Elections Code §11020. That statute describes the notice of intention, which triggers the recall process. Section 11020(c) provides that the notice of intention must contain “The printed name, signature, and residence address, including street and number, city, and ZIP code, of each of the proponents of the recall. If a proponent cannot receive mail at the residence address, he or she must provide an alternative mailing address. The minimum number of proponents is 10, or equal to the number of signatures requires to have been filed on the nomination paper of the officer sought to be recalled, whichever is higher.” In other words, for the purpose of §11005, the “proponents” are the limited number of persons who sign the notice of intention. Regardless of whom else is supporting the recall (city residents, city wd REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 employees, interested stakeholders), the signers of the notice of intention must be registered voters of the district. Section 11005 could not have intended to limit those persons who have control and charge of the circulation process to those 20 people who sign the notice of intent. In a large district, and in a city like Santa Ana that has a population of over 300,000 people, limiting the persons who control and take charge of a recall to the 20 original signatories would make a recall virtually impossible. The city cites to People v. Colver (1980) 107 Cal. App.3d 277. That was a criminal case where the issue was whether a jury instruction on the definition of “proponent” properly stated the law. The case actually supports the petitioner here because it holds the term “proponent” is both the signers of the notice of intent, and the persons in charge and control, and they are not mutually inclusive. The criminal defendant, Colver, favored a local anti-development initiative. He spoke on its behalf at public meetings and assisted with publicity. Surreptitiously, Colver approached a developer who would be harmed by the initiative, and suggested to the developer that he would scuttle the initiative in exchange for money (described as a purchase of diamonds). Colver was charged with a violation of then-Elections Code §29740, a version of what is now §18600. Colver claimed he was not a proponent, citing then-Elections Code §29710, a version of what is now Elections Code §342. At that time, the statute was limited to state initiatives, which the court found to be “absurd”. After noting several inconsistencies in the statutes, the court turned to the jury instruction given for “proponent”. The instruction said that “a proponent may include, but is not limited to, those individuals who file the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition. A proponent is an advocate and supporter, an individual or group who lay down and defend a policy or legislative measure.” The instruction added, in addition, that “’The term, ‘proponents’, as used in these instructions, refers to persons who have charge or control of the circulation or obtaining signatures of such petitions.” The flaw in the instruction was the inclusion of the “advocate and supporter” language. The court found that from the definition of proponents in section 29710, now section 342, the intent of the Legislature was “to refer to an identifiable group of individuals rather than to all those who advocate and support a particular measure”. Looking at all the statutes, the court said: _5- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION t h BA W N 10 1 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 “We conclude, therefore, that as used in chapter 7, the term ‘proponent or proponents of an initiative or referendum measure’ includes for a statewide initiative, those who submit the measure to the Attorney General, and for local measures, those who sign the notice of intent to circulate the initiative petition for city initiatives, gnd those who publish the notice of intent to circulate the petition for county initiatives.” [underlining and font added] In other words, the court found that a proponent can be either somebody falling under what is now §11005 or somebody falling under what is now §343. The problem with the jury instruction in Colver was that it cast too wide of a net, encircling people who were mere supporters of the initiative but who did not have a role as either a signatory or as a person having charge of or controlling the recall process. Colver may have been a supporter of the initiative, but he was neither a signatory nor a person in charge or control. The court clearly found that sections 343 and 11005 are not mutually inclusive. The definition of “proponent” in §11005 does not limit the definition of “proponent” in §343. It is worth noting that the Elections Code specifically contemplates that proponents can have people working for them. Elections Code §18601 provides: “Any person working for the proponent or proponents of an initiative or referendum measure or recall petition who refuses to allow a prospective signer to read the measure or petition is guilty of a misdemeanor. An arrest or conviction pursuant to this section shall not invalidate or otherwise affect the validity of any signature obtained by the person arrested or convicted.” Section 18602 provides: “Any person working for the proponent or proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure who covers or otherwise obscures the summary of the measure prepared by the Attorney General from the view of a prospective signer is guilty of a misdemeanor.” There is no rational basis to say that the persons who take charge of or control a recall have to be registered voters, but they can have persons working for them who do not have to be. To quote Colver, “Such a result seems absurd.” Id at 286. Accordingly, the city clerk was legally incorrect in rejecting the first Notice of Intent on the ground that the person submitting it was not a proponent. She was also legally incorrect in demanding that the people submitting the third Notice of Intent and the petition be one of the 20 signatories. i. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION EE V E 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2d 23 24 25 26 28 There is also a constitutional question. This was raised in the ex parte application, but has not been addressed by the city. The question is this: if the proponents, as defined in §343, are limited to registered voters in the district, is that constitutional? The key cases are Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), and Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners v. City of San Clemente, supra, 158 Cal. App.4th 1427. In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that a state statute requiring that intiative petition circulators be registered voters was a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech. The Court found that restricting the participation to registered voters diminished the pool of political activity beyond what was proper. The Court said: “The Tenth Circuit reasoned that the registration requirement placed on Colorado's voter-eligible population produces a speech diminution of the very kind produced by the ban on paid circulators at issue in Meyer. See 120 F.3d, at 1100. We agree. The requirement that circulators be not merely voter eligible, but registered voters, it is scarcely debatable given the uncontested numbers, see supra, at 642-643, and n. 15, decreases the pool of potential circulators as certainly as that pool is decreased by the prohibition of payment to circulators. Both provisions “limi[t] the number of voices who will convey {the initiative proponents'] message” and, consequently, cut down “the size of the audience [proponents] can reach.” Meyer, 486 U.S., at 422, 423, 108 S.Ct. 1886; see Bernbeck v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1114, 1116 (C.A.8 1997) (quoting Meyer }, see also Meyer, 486 U.S., at 423 (stating, further, that the challenged restriction reduced the chances that initiative proponents would gather signatures sufficient in number to qualify for the ballot, and thus limited proponents’ “ability to make the matter the focus of statewide discussion”). In this case, as in Meyer, the requirement “imposes a burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify.” /d., at 428, 108 S.Ct. 1886.” 525 U.S, at 194-195. In Preserve Shorecliff Homeowners, the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that a requirement that circulators be eligible to be voters of the city to be unconstitutional under Buckley. The court found that the city’s interest in local participation was satisfied by the signature requirements. Anything more was unconstitutionally intrusive. “The anti-referendum group in its supplemental briefing here refers to it as the statutory purpose to ‘maintain proper local control over policymaking and elections.” But what it is called, this ‘grass roots’ interest was authoritatively held by the Buckley court to be sufficiently served by the lesser measure of requiring a certain number of Te REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 03 23 24 26 27 28 signatures from actual voters, as distinct from the more intrusive measure of reducing the pool of potential circulators who could bring those voters a given message.” 158 Cal. App.4™ at 1449-1450. Thus the Elections Code can set the number of necessary signers of the notice of intent, and it can require that they be registered voters. But it cannot restrict who the “proponents” are for the purpose of gathering signatures or controlling the recall campaign. A statute will be given a construction that is consistent with constitutional validity if at all possible. Persky v. Bushey (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 810, 817-18; People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co. (1930) 211 Cal. 121, 127. A construction of §343 that limits it to the 20 signers would be unconstitutional. The construction of §343 that is consistent with constitutional rights is one that finds that §343 does not prohibit the petitioner from proceeding in this matter. Recall Villegas is not demanding that it be listed as a proponent on the recall petition. That honor still remains with the 20 signatories. Recall Villegas simply wants the city clerk to stop interfering with Recall Villegas’s statutory right to do the laboring oar of submitting the notices of intent and the petition without the city clerk. There is one more point, about the ministerial duties of city clerks. The city clerk went beyond her role in this case when she (1) demanded that the person filing the first notice of intent be a proponent; and (2) when she demanded that the persons attempting to file the third notice of intent and the petition prove that they were residents of Santa Ana or had the consent of the signers. Both of these demands were beyond the authority of the city clerk. In Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade, supra, 108 Cal. App. 4th 123, 133-35, the court made it clear that elections officials are limited to the four corners of the documents submitted to them. The court said: “Collectively, these cases only authorize local elections officials to review a petition as submitted for compliance with procedural requirements, absent an express grant of broader powers. They foreclose elections official decisions that are discretionary or go beyond a straightforward comparison of the submitted petition with the statutory requirements for petitions. “Here, the Petition as submitted to the city clerk complied with sections 9201 and 9207. . . The city clerk went beyond the face of the Petition and concluded that _8- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the full text and notice of intention had been added only after circulation, and that the sections had not been circulated in compliance with the requirements of sections 9201 and 9207. She deduced this from four pieces of evidence: (1) in some instances, the signature page showed greater wear than the full text page and notice of intention page, (2) unidentified third parties informed her that they had seen some circulators circulate sections of the Petition without the full text and notice of intention, (3) a folder containing signature pages without the notice of intention or full text attached was left in the city council chambers, and (4) the city clerk believed the proponents had violated the Elections Code in the past with respect to matters unrelated to the submission of the Petition. “This sort of decisionmaking is fundamentally different from the ministerial duties countenanced by Farley, Billig, and Myers. It involves not a straightforward comparison of the submitted petition with clear statutory directives (Is the full text attached? Is there a circulators signed declaration?) but a discretionary evaluation of evidence, including evidence extrinsic to the Petition itself, to reach a factual conclusion not evident from the face of the Petition. Unlike these earlier cases, here, reasonable minds could differ as to what inferences to draw from the evidence before the city clerk. The limited record before the city clerk and before us does not establish whether sections 9201 and 9207 were violated or how many signatures might have been affected by any violations. The city clerk's decision involves the sort of discretionary, adjudicatory decisionmaking reserved for judges and juries.” The city clerk in this case misinterpreted the law. She compounded this by considering and demanding extraneous evidence. She should have accepted the first notice of intent. By her actions, she has delayed the recall and put it in danger of missing significant deadlines. If the recall has to be put on a special ballot, rather than being part of a general election, it will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. For all these reasons, the Writs d be granted. ) Ar 3 | DATED: August 2, 2019 Wr. : MARKS ROSEN Attorney for Petitioner —9_ REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 DECLARATION OF DANIEL FIERRO I, Daniel Fierro, declare as follows: 1. This is a supplemental declaration to my prior declaration in this case. I am the manager for the petitioner in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. 2. As I previously stated in my declaration, Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas is a neighborhood organization urging the recall of Councilmember Juan Villegas. Villegas was elected to the city council in 2016. At the time, councilmembers ran from districts but were elected by the entire city. This will change in 2020 when councilmembers will be elected solely from their districts. 3. Villegas was elected on a platform of supporting tough enforcement of the criminal law and supporting police officers and giving them the resources to be strong on crime. Villegas was a deputy Orange County sheriff. He ran against an incumbent councilmember, Roman Reyna, who had not supported the police. Villegas beat Reyna. 4. Villegas’s former supporters, who have contacted me, believe that Villegas has reneged on his campaign promises. They believe he has not been supportive of law enforcement. As a result, neighbors and others have seen the need to recall Villegas so he cannot do more damage to the city during the balance of his term. Those supporting the recall asked me to organize the recall. They recognized that they could not take on a sophisticated political action without help from persons who are knowledgeable about organizing. There are few, if any, people who live in Villegas’s district who have this knowledge. I agreed to take on this task. 5. With my help, the recall supporters established Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas (hereinafter “Recall Villegas”). Under my guidance, the Notice of Intention was created and signatures of registered voters in the district were obtained. 6. California law requires that when a target of a recall is served with a notice of intent, and the people conducting the recall raise or spend more than $2,000, they must formalize the committee and file a campaign committee formation report with the elections officer. Thus on June 17, 2019, Recall Villegas filed a Form 410 with the California Secretary of State. ~10- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION 7. The principal officer of Recall Villegas is Veronica Morales. The treasurer of Recall Villegas is Pattie Limon. Ms. Limon works as a legal assistant for attorney Mark S. Rosen, but her treasurer duties are separate. A copy of the Form 410 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. Iand Veronica Morales took the lead in obtaining signatures on the Notice of Intent. Because of obstruction from the Santa Ana city clerk, we had to obtain signatures on three different occasions. In each instance, we or other people in the community went door-to-door to obtain the signatures. We then had to serve Villegas cach time, and allow him the statutory time to serve us with an answer to the notice of intent. This is why so much time passed between each filing of the notice of intent. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of August, 2019, at Anaheim, California. PANIEL FIERRO -11-= REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; DECLARATION EXHIBIT A R E C E I V E D AND FILED ~. __..{ i i a Le a in the office of the Secretary.of State | J Ce - N of the Stale of California ~~~ ~*~ = o r e m Statement of Organization oo JUN 24 201 Recipient Committee R E C E I V E D —T :- eS Xd Statement Type |GZ initial J Amendment 7] Termination — See Part 5 {in tha office of the Secratary of Hate F e c a l only, & Nol yet qualified of the Stata uf California ar Date qualification Lhreshold met | Date qualification threshold met Date of lermination J U i 1 7 2 0 1 9 / / / / / 1. Committee Information: © | .D. Number £72. Freasurerand Other. Principal Officers : T E a Ty Th 1 {if applicable) RE Te Te H A N L OF C O M I S I T T E E N A M E OF T R E A S U R E R Neighbors Supporling the Recail of Juan Villegas Pattie Limon S T R E E T A D D R E S S {RS PO. #03) 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd. #814 S T A L E Y A D O R E S S (HO P Q 20X) c y $TATL ZIP C O D E L F A C O D T / A P H O N E 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd. #814 Sania Ana CA 9 2 7 0 1 7 1 4 - 2 8 5 - 9 8 3 8 CITY STATE 2IP C O D E A R E A C O D E / P H O R E H A M E OF A S S I S T A R T T R E A S U R E R , 1 A N Y Santa Ana CA 92701 657-256-6898 FULL M A L I S G A D D R E S S (IF D U F F E P E N T ] S T R E E T A D D R E S S {HO PO BOX} T R A I L A D D R E S S ( R E Q U I R E D ) / FAX { O P T I O N A L } c n y STATE ZIF L O D E A R E A C O D E / P H O N E P D L 8 4 6 6 @ A O L . C O M C O U N T Y QF D O M I C I L E J U A L S T I C T I O N W R E R E C O M I I T T E E 1S ACTIVE N A M E OF F R I N C I ? A L O F F C E R ( S ) Vergnia Morales S T R E E T A D D R E S S (HQ 20. 80X) B00 W. Sania Ana Bivd. #814 TTY STATE ZIP CODE AREA C O D E / P H O M E Santa Ana CA 92701 6 5 7 - 2 5 6 - 6 8 8 8 Attach additional information oa appropriately labeled continuation sheets. Verification: St { have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement and to the best of my knowledge the informa penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cailfornia that the foregoing Is true and correct, > C L Executed on = | A -| q By x a e ( P 1 4 A W N DATE A I B H A T U R E OF T R E A S U R E R OX A S S I S T A N T T R E A S U R E R fecedon » C = = F 4 = tion contained herein is true and corplete. j certify under DATE STEN ATURE OF CONTROILING OF FICENDLDER, CANDIDATE. GR STATE MEASURE PROFONERT Executed onl By DATE TCRATURE GF CONTROLUNG OFFICEHOLDER, CANDIDATE, OF STATE MEASURE PROPONENT Executedon ___ By DATL S I G N A T U R E OF C O N T R O L L I N G OFF H C E N D L D E R , C A N D I D A T E , OR STATE M E A S U R E PAQF G H E N T £PPC Form 410 {August/2018} FPPC Advice: advice@fppc.ca.gov (866/275-3772) wwiw.fppe.ca.gov TNR L L rr ber Pagal” Statement of Organization Recipient Committee 4 S T A U C T I O N S GH R E V E R S E C O M I A T T E E NAME 1.0, N U M E R Neighbors Supporting the Recall of Juan Villegas « All committees must list the financial institution where the campaign bank account is located. THAME QF FINARDIALINSTTUTION AREA CODE/PUONE SANK ACCOUNT NUMBER Bank of America 866-963-2481 ADDRESS cry STATE 4p CODE 1448 N. Main Street Santa Ana CA 92701 T L delle - List the name of each cantrolling officeholder, candidate, or state measure proponent. #f candidate ar officeholder controlled, also list the elective office sought or held, and district number, if any, and the year of the election. » List the political party with which each officeholder or candidate is affiliated or check “nonpartisan.” Stating "No party preference” is acceptable. + If this committee acts jointly with another controlled committee, list the name and identification number of the other controlled committee. ELECTIVE OFFICE SOUGHT OR HELD YAR OF PARTY NAME OF CANDIDATE/OFEICEHOLDER/STATE MEASURE PROP ONENT {INCLUDE DISTRICT H U B E R IF APPLICABLE} ELECTION CHECK ORE Nonpartisan | Portisan [list political party belaw) - [1 iL] Nonpartiszn | Partisan (list political party below) 1 d Pritnarily formed tc support of oppose specific candidates or measures in a single election. List below: CANDIDATES) N A M E OR M E A S U R E S ) FULL TITLE (INCLUDE BALLOT #0. Of LETTER) CANDIDATE(S) OFFICE SOUGHT OR HELD Gf tAEASURE(S} SURISDICTION IF A RECALL, STATE "RECALL" 4 FRONT OF THE OFFICCHOLOER'S NAME. (HCLUDE DISTRICT HO, CITY OR COUNTY, AS APPLICABLE} CHECK ONE = SUPPORT OPPOSE R e c a l l of Juan V i l l e g a s city of Santa Ana x] [] J {ep i FPPC Form 410 {August/2018) £pPC Advice: advice@fppe.ca.gov {866/275-3772} www.fppe.ca.gov 2 wd A ) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE At the time of service [ was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd,, Suite 814, Santa Ana, CA 92701. On August 2, 2019, I served the following documents: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DANIEL FIERRO I served the documents on the person(s) below as follows: Sonia R. Carvalho, scarvalhof@santa-ana.org Laura A. Rossini Irossini‘@santa-ana.org City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza M-29 Santa Ana, California 92702 The documents were served by the following means: (x) BY MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the addressee above and (specify one): () deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid; or (x) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practice for collection 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 prepared. Iam a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at Santa Ana, California. (x) BY EMAIL: electronic service: | electronically served the documents to the addressee listed above at the addressee's email address listed above I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of August, 2019, at S ha Ana, California. ~ / MARES ROSEN’
