PEOPLE v. GOLDSMITHAppellant’s Request for Judicial NoticeCal.March 18, 2013No. 8201443 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff& Respondent, CARMEN GOLDSMITH Defendant & Appellant. After Decision by Court ofAppeal, Second District, Div. Three Appeal Transferred from Appellate Division of Los Angeles Superior Court Appeal No. B231678; App. Div. No. BR048189; Trial Court No, 102693IN Hon. John Johnson, Commissioner APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [Filed Concurrently with Reply Brief on the Merits] Robert Cooper (SBN 209641) WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 South FlowerStreet, 29th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 443-5100 Fax: (213) 443-5101 Robert.Cooper@wilsonelser.com Pro Bono Counselfor Appellant CARMEN GOLDSMITH John J. Jackman (SBN 230169) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. JACKMAN 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 Culver City, California 90230 Tel: (818) 268-8243 Fax: (661) 288-1729 johnjay@jackmanlaweroup.com Co-Counselfor Appellant CARMEN GOLDSMITH 1781702.1 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Appellant Carmen Goldsmith respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the attached documents obtained from the Arizona Secretary of State. These documents relate to prior falsification of evidence by the ATES vendorthat generated the photos used at Goldsmith’s trial. These documents represent the official records of the Arizona state agency, impeaching the arguments raised by respondent regarding thereliability of ATESvendors’ materials. LEGAL DISCUSSION “The reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452.” (Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a).) For example, undersection 452(c), the Court may take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the ... executive ... departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Applying the latter statute, courts have granted motions for judicial notice in other cases. (See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm'n (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 375, fn. 4 [applying this statutory provision to transcript of public hearings before San Francisco Airports Commission]; Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. State of California (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 77, 85-86 [taking judicial notice of records of California State Board of Control and office of the State Controller; collecting cases].)' 1 The documents submitted with this motion “were not presentedto the trial court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(B).) They do not “relate[] to proceedings occurring after the ... judgment that is the subject of the appeal.” (Rule 8.252(a)(2)(D).) 1781702.1 CONCLUSION The motion should be granted. Respectfully submitted, DATED:March 15, 2013 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. JACKMAN WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP »y CRS Robert Cooper Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant CARMEN GOLDSMITH 1781702.1 DECLARATION I, Robert Cooper, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of California. I represent appellant in this appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below regarding the retrieval of the attached documents. 2. I obtained/received the attached documents (each of the pages compiled in Exhibit 1) directly from the Arizona Secretary of State around August 9, 2012 in response to my request for the agency’s records. 3. The original stamps of this agency on the attached documents confirm that these are accurate copies of the agency’s records (including Redflex’s Deployment Form that was the subject of this investigation). 4. The notes handwritten by the agency’s representative, Holly Textor, reflect that the addresses of Redflex’s notary (Cheryl Krough) and the individual that made the formal complaint against Redflex (Mark Abshire) have been redacted by the agency pursuant to Arizona laws governing the dissemination of public records. 5. According to these documents, the agency ultimately “revoked” the notary license issued to Redflex’s notary, Cheryl Krough, based onthis investigation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 15, 2013 at Los Angeles, California. Robert Cooper 1781702.1 Notary Department Page 1 of 1 SeTa fizofa Department of State se Officeof the Secretary ofState Arizona Secretary of State Notary Public System Generated by Notary Search Version 3.20 Notary Information COMMISSION NUMBER!213909 NAME CHERYL A. KROUGH CURRENT STATUS /REVOKED REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS BUSINESS 15020 N 74TH ST SCOTTSDALE, AZ, 85260 Notary Commission Information . Action : Reinstate |Reinstated Action Begin Date} End Date County Bond Date Date Action Type Date Type 6/15/2005|6/14/2009|MARICOPA|6/29/2005|7/2/2008 |REVOKED 6/15/2001|6/14/2005|MARICOPA|!7/3/2001 Back to Notary Search ©Copyright 1996, 2002 by Arizona Secretary of State - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The foregoing documentIs a complete,true and correct copyof the documentfiled with the Arlzo PTE . By. Vas Date VA LLafia. http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/Notary_Search.dll/ZoomNotary?NOTID=213909 8/6/2012 6D 14 US U4:syp p.13 C REDFLEX _... DEPLOYMENT FORR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS SMARTCAM SPEED PHOTO RADAR VEHICLE BATE: 1 ;q VEHICLE: LA Eof OPERATOR CODE: Ss,Ad, é4} AUTHORITY NAME (POLICE): iLoeHe LOCATION CODE: L,A& ced # OF LANES ENFORCED. J OPERATOR NAME: LOCATION DESCRIPTION i™SIE Goaothz Be. A’ Borer’ SPEED LIMM: “CER $ . = h B LI E a5 TRIGGER SPEED: st CHECKLIST (Check in Sequence} © de ca ne R A E R E D OP L O R E D PE RE R O R A L EE NO NE SS T O T — 1 surveying the Site Starting the De! Lioyments & Confirm Incation of tha van and cfense is wi irin the & Foliow screenl prompts corgoratelimits hi Ermer lane defai's (Maintenance Tad} i & Verity that no ‘arge, metallic objects in redar’s field of Kj Take a Test Shot io test the cameras Take rem i : view AD Li veticle shots to test image alignment " & Speed Sign - Distance #4AO te “ap Ending the Deployment , : Press the Stop Button ta end 2 depioyment : Positioning the Vebicie & Fil out Deployment Sheet JB Measure to ensure vehicts is paraliel w ith ihe road Transinitting of Deployment Information Radar Alignment Upload data 43 Level the radar units by checking the positi on of ing level bubble and using the key and level p rovided Deployment Arba : Verify that the radaris locked Into place RM Residentia! (Commercial Bt Aim radars to center mass of pas sing vehicles Oo Cther : Speed Limit over 46 MPH ADSigns Depioy d° EPVes° Oo No DEPLOYMENT TIMES: From Gperati ng Screen] STATISTICAL INFORMATION Deployment Siar Time:a éHour Min.) Tota! Vehictes: "ei Deployment EndTime: _/ fo 3 tH our: Min.) To tat Offenses Captured: FUMING FORK TESTS Venicles Over: Begiining of Deployment w Pasa 0 fail SCHOOL ZONE DEPLOYMENTS End of Deployment ig Pass GFail . Signs Deployed: © Yes Serial # ETFSBOSE‘eo? oa No TRAFFIC: LIGHT. MODE RATE REA WEATHER:Sige, SsLads COMMEN TS: i, BEING FIRST DULYSWORK, DEPOS E & SAY: | HAVE BEE PROPERLY TR AINED & QuaLirien TO OPERATE TH E RTS SPEED CABERA SYSTEM, ON THEDATE & THAE RESO RDED ABOVE i PARKEDTHE SPEED CAMERA SYSTEM AT THE ABOVE LO CATION& USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, OPERATED THE TRAFFIC CAMERATO MONITOR TRAFFIC. | CERTIFY THAT UPON REA SONABLE GROUNDS| SELIEVE THAT EACH OFTHE DEFEND ANTS COMPLAINEDAGARST ON THI S DATE UPOM THE BASIS OF THE TRA FFIC CAMERA CONRSITEDTHEAGT DESCRIBED C ONTRARY TG LAY &{ RAVE CAUSED AROTICE A COPY OF THE COM PLAINT TO 2S5 MAILED TO BACH DEFERCANT. é ostHR 6wrech {E-L0-07 ; OPERATORNAME pare a NOTARIZATION NOT NECESSARY IE OPERATOR APPEARS IN COURT an UBSCRIBED & BHORN 79 BEFQRE ME: JAN BREWER SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF ARIZONA July 2, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL Cheryl Krough __ me Re: Cheryl Krough, Notary Public Commission Dear Ms. Krough: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-331, the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) has completed the investigation into the complaint brought against the Notary, Cheryl Krough (‘Notary’) by Mark Abshire (“Complainant”) alleging that the Notary improperly notarized a document titled “Deployment Form”(“Form”). The Complainant claims the signer of the Form, Scott Bernard - (“Signer’’), was not in the Notary’s presence when she notarized the Form. In this complaint, the only issue that the Secretary of State’s Office (“Secretary”) is authorized to assess is whether, under the notary statutes, the Notary properly notarized the Form. The Secretary does not have the authority to determine whether any signature on the Formwasforgedor to settle any legal disputes regarding the Form. A, The NotaryResponded to the Complaint. A notary is required to respond to an Attorney General’s Office investigation about her notarial services. A.R.S. §§ 41-313 (B)(4) and 41-331(B). In addition a notary public is required to maintain a journal and produce a copy if requested. A.R.S. § 41-319(A). The Notary in this instance wrote a short response to the complaint on a post it note. She affixed the note to a copy of the Form that she provided, and she also provided a copy of her notary journal. the Notary has met the standards of the notary laws. When a notary has “personal knowledge” of a signer, the notary may retain a paper or electronic copy of the notarized document in lieu of recording the notarial act in her journal. A.R.S. § 41-319(B). The notary must then provide the requestor a copy of that “retained document. ” Jd. B, The Notary’s Journal is Deficient. State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 mi The foregoing documentIs a complete,true and correct copyof the documentfiled with the Arizona Secretary of State. Redacted Address orCalle aD te C'PVi2 A notary’s journal must contain the following for each notarization: (1) the date of the notarial act; (2) the documentdescription; (3) the printed nameofthe signer as well as his or her address and signature; (4) the type of evidence for the signer’s identity; (5) the specific identity information of the signer; and (6) the fee charged for the notarization. A.R.S. § 41-319. The Notary’s journal entry lacks requisite information and raises questions about the notarial act. The journal page the Notary providedlists four (4) separate notary transactions, and the one in question is listed at the top of the page. Forall the entries, the lines for the “Date Notarized” and “Time of Notarization” are blank. In addition, the Notary fails to identify the type of “NOTARIAL SERVICE” performed and the “TYPE/NAME OF DOCUMENT” notarized. The printed name, signature, address, and telephone numberof each signeris included in each one, but the “TYPE OF ID”is not provided for any of them. Furthermore, the “FEE”line ; although that might indicate the Notary did not charge fee. oe MUCEAN: tary:‘journal entries of the Form in question and the other three recorded notarizations lack requisite information. The Notary has failed to meet the standards ofthe law. Cc, The “Personal Knowledge” Exemption Is Not Available. Whena notary has “personal knowledge” of a signer, the notary may retain a paper or electronic copy of the notarized document in lieu of recording the notarial act in her journal. A.R.S. § 41-319(B). The notary must then provide the requestor a copy of that “retained document.” Jd: The Notary provided acopy of the Form with her written response. However, the Notary does not claim that she personally knew the Signer, and her journal entry does not indicate she personally knew him. If the Notary knew the Signer she would not have been required to record the notarial act in her journal, and she would not have needed to have her journal evaluated. The “personal knowledge” exemptionis not available to her fornot maintaining her journal. D. We Are Unable to Determine Whether the Signer Was Present. The Notary wrote on her (post it note) response that she obtained the Signer’s signature in her notary journal when he “was.in Arizona for training.” Her journal entry does not clearly support her defense. She offers no explanation for why the Form and the other three (3) entries on the page are not dated. The Signer’s signature in the notary journal indicates he signed it. Without notarization dates for any of the four (4) entries on the page, however, the timing of the Signer’s signature on either the Form or in the journal cannot be evaluated. In short, it cannot be determined whether the Signer was in the Notary’s presence when the Notary notarized the Form. E. The Notary Executed an Improper Notarial Certificate. 1. The Jurat is Deficient. The notarial certificate of the Form is a jurat because it contains the phrase “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME.”A.R.S. § 41-311(6). the proper notarization of a State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 The foregoing documentIs a complete,true and correct copy of the documentfiled with the Arizona Secretary of,State. 0CW A) Date UV L/-WZ “jurat” requires the following: (1) the signer’s identity be proven by satisfactory evidence;(2) the signer’s signature be made voluntarily in the presence of the notary; and (3) the signer takes an oath or affirmation vouching for the truthfulness of the signed document. A.R.S. § 41-311(6) (defining “jurat’”); Manual {J 208, 217 & 219. Here, because the Notary’s journal fails to contain satisfactory evidence of the Signer’s identity it cannot be ascertained that the Signer actually signed the journal. As stated above,it cannot be determined whether the Signer affixed his signature to the Form in the notary’s presence. Therefore, since the journal entry is not dated it also cannot be determined whetherthe Notary administered the jurat oath to the Signer. The Notary executed a notarial certificate containing a false statement, providing the Secretary grounds for suspension or revocation. ARS. § 41-330(A)(Q9). 2. The Form is Incomplete. The notary statutes prohibit notaries from notarizing a jurat on a document that is “incomplete.” A.R.S. § 41-328(A) A document is “incomplete” where the signature line has not been signed or where other obvious blanks appear. A.R.S. § 41-311(5). . The “COMMENTS?”line on the Form is blank, so if comments were unnecessary then a notation of “Not applicable” or something to that effect should have been written on the line. Plus, the “SCHOOL ZONE DEPLOYMENTS’section above and to the right of the “COMMENTS”line is not completed; either the “Yes” or “No” box should have been marked. Therefore, the Form is “incomplete:?’ The Secretary has grounds to revoke or suspend the Notary’s commission based on the Notary’s failure to complete the jurat at the time she affixed her signature and seal to the document: A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(8). F, Conclusion The Secretary possesses special knowledge and expertise in interpreting the notary statutes and believes that the definitions, requirements (i.e. oath & bond) and duties outlined in A.R.S. § 41-311 through A.R.S. § 41-332 are standards to which each notary must comply. The Secretary believes that in addition to the specific offenses outlined by the Arizona legislature which would warrant action against a notary’s commission, in cases where there is substantial evidence that the notary’s actions fail to meet the standards described in the notary statutes, the Secretary has grounds to refuse, revoke or suspend a notary’s commission for “failure to discharge fully and faithfully any of the duties or responsibilities required of a notary public.” A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(4) Therefore, the Secretary of State has determined to revoke the Notary’s commission effective immediately. The revocation of the Notary’s commission is based on the following violations ofArizona notary law: 1. The Notary failed to record requisite information in her journal. A.R.S. §41-319. 2. Execution of a statement known to be false. A.R.S. §41-330(A)(10). State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 3. Execution of a jurat notarial certificate on a document that contains blanks. A.R.S. § 41- 328(A) 4, The Notary Failed to fully and faithfully discharge the duties or responsibilities required of a notary public. A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(4). The Notary has a right to request an evidentiary hearing pursuant to A.R.S.§41-1092.03 by filing a written notice of appeal with the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. If you request an evidentiary hearing as referenced above, you mayalso request an informal settlement conference pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.06. If a hearing is not requested within the time provided bythe statute, the decision will stand. If you have any concemsregarding this issue, you may contact Holly Textor at 602-542- 6181. Sincerely, Joann Cota, Assistant Director Business Services Division Cc: Attorney General’s Office Notary File n trueing document Is a comp lete, and Correct Copy of the document filed w ith the Arizoga Secret ary of ale WZ By Rate State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 COPY JAN BREWER SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF ARIZONA July 3, 2008 Mark Abshire Re: Cheryl Krough, Notary Public Commission Dear Mr. Abshire: Pursuarit to A.R.S. § 41-331, the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) has completed the investigation into the complaint brought against the Notary, Cheryl Krough (“Notary”) by Mark Abshire (“Complainant”) alleging that the Notary improperly notarized a documenttitled “Deployment Form” (“Form”). The Complainant claims the signer of the Form, Scott Bernard (“Signer’’), was not in the Notary’s presence when she notarized the Form. In this complaint, the only issue that the Secretary of State’s Office (“Secretary”) is authorized to assess is whether, under the notary statutes, the Notary properly notarized the Form. The Secretary does not have the authority to determine whether any signature on the Form wasforgedorto settle any legal disputes regarding the Form. A, The Notary Respondedto the Complaint. A notary is required to respond to an Attorney General’s Office investigation about her notarial services. A.R.S. §§ 41-313 (B)(4) and 41-331(B). In addition a notary public is required to maintain a journal and produce a copyif requested. A.R.S. § 41-319(A). The Notary in this instance wrote a short response to the complaint on a postit note. She affixed the note to a copy of the Form that she provided, and she also provided a copy of her notary journal. the Notary has met the standards of the notary laws. When a notary has “personal knowledge” of a signer, the notary may retain a paper or electronic copy of the notarized document in lieu of recording the notarial act in her journal. A.R.S. § 41-319(B). The notary must then provide the requestor a copy of that “retained document. ” Jd. B. The Notary’s Journal is Deficient. A notary’s journal must contain the following for each notarization: (1) the date of the notarial act; (2) the document description; (3) the printed nameofthe signer as well as his or her State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 address and signature; (4) the type of evidence for the signer’s identity; (5) the specific identity information of the signer; and (6) the fee charged for the notarization. A.R.S. § 41-319. The Notary’s journal entry lacks requisite information and raises questions about the notarial act. The journal page the Notary providedlists four (4) separate notary transactions, and the one in question is listed at the top of the page. For all the entries, the lines for the “Date Notarized” and “Time of Notarization” are blank. In addition, the Notary fails to identify the type of “NOTARIAL SERVICE” performed and the “IT'YPE/NAME OF DOCUMENT” notarized. The printed name, signature, address, and telephone numberof each signer is included in each one, but the “TYPE OF ID”is not provided for any of them. Furthermore, the “FEE”line is blank in each entry, although that might indicate the Notary did not charge a fee. Thus, the Notary’s journal entries of the Form in question and the other three recorded notarizations lack requisite information. The Notary has failed to meet the standardsofthe law. OF The “Personal Knowledge” Exemption Is Not Available. When a notary has “personal knowledge” of a signer, the notary may retain a paper or electronic copy of the notarized documentin lieu of recording the notarial act in her journal. A.R.S. § 41-319(B). The notary must then provide the requestor a copy of that “retained document. ”Jd. The Notary provided a copy of the Form withher written response. However, the Notary does not claim that she personally knew the Signer, and her journal entry does notindicate she personally knew him. If the Notary knew the Signer she would not have been required to record the notarial act in her journal, and she would not have needed to have her journal evaluated. The “personal knowledge’ exemptionis not available to her for not maintaining her journal. D. We Are Unable to Determine Whether the Signer Was Present. The Notary wrote on her (post it note) response that she obtained the Signer’s signature in her notary journal when he “was in Arizona for training.” Her journal entry does not clearly support her defense. She offers no explanation for why the Form andthe other three (3) entries on the page are not dated. The Signer’s signature in the notary journal indicates he signed it. Without notarization dates for any of the four (4) entries on the page, however, the timing of the Signer’s signature on either the Form orin the journal cannot be evaluated. In short, it cannot be determined whether the Signer was in the Notary’s presence when the Notary notarized the Form. E. The Notary Executed an Improper Notarial Certificate. 1. The Jurat is Deficient. The notarial certificate of the Form is a jurat because it contains the phrase “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME.”A.R.S. § 41-311(6). the proper notarization of a “Surat” requires the following: (1) the signer’s identity be proven bysatisfactory evidence; (2) the signer’s signature be made voluntarily in the presence of the notary; and (3) the signer takes an State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 oath or affirmation vouching for the truthfulness of the signed document. A.R.S. § 41-311(6) (defining “jurat”); Manual ff 208, 217 & 219. Here, because the Notary’s journal fails to contain satisfactory evidence of the Signer’s identity it cannot be ascertained that the Signer actually signed the journal. As stated above,it cannot be determined whether the Signer affixed his signature to the Form in the notary’s presence. Therefore, since the journal entry is not dated it also cannot be determined whether the Notary administered the jurat oath to the Signer. The Notary executed a notarial certificate containing a false statement, providing the Secretary grounds for suspension or revocation. A.RS. § 41-330(A)(9). 2. The Form is Incomplete. The notary statutes prohibit notaries from notarizing a jurat on a documentthat is “incomplete.” A.R.S. § 41-328(A) A documentis “incomplete” where the signature line has not been signed or where other obvious blanks appear. A.R.S. § 41-311(5). The “COMMENTS?line on the Form is blank, so if comments were unnecessary then a notation of “Not applicable” or something to that effect should have been written on the line. Plus, the “SCHOOL ZONE DEPLOYMENTS’ section above and to the ‘right of the “COMMENTS”line is not completed; either the “Yes” or “No” box should have been marked. Therefore, the Form is “incomplete.” The Secretary has grounds to revoke or: suspend the -Notary’s commission based on the Notary’s failure to complete the jurat at the time she affixed her signature and seal to the document. A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(8). F. Conclusion The Secretary possesses special knowledge and expertise in interpreting the notary statutes and believes that the definitions, requirements (i.e. oath & bond) and duties outlined in A.R.S. § 41-311 through A.R.S. § 41-332 are standards to which each notary must comply. The Secretary believes that in addition to the specific offenses outlined by the Arizona legislature which would warrant action against a notary’s commission, in cases where there is substantial evidence that the notary’s actions fail to meet the standards described in the notary statutes, the Secretary has grounds to refuse, revoke or suspend a notary’s commission for “failure to discharge fully and faithfully any of the duties or responsibilities required of a notary public.” A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(4) Therefore, the Secretary of State has determined to revoke the Notary’s commission effective immediately. The revocation of the Notary’s commission is based on the following violations of Arizona notary law: 1. The Notary failed to record requisite information in her journal. A.R.S. §41-319. 2. Execution of a statement known to be false. A.R.S. §41-330(A)(10). 3. Execution ofa jurat notarial certificate on a document that contains blanks. A.R.S. § 41- 328(A) State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 4. The Notary Failed to fully and faithfully discharge the duties or responsibilities required of anotary public. A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(4). The Notary has a right to request an evidentiary hearing pursuant to A.R.S.§41-1092.03 byfiling a written notice of appeal with the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. If you request an evidentiary hearing as referenced above, you mayalso request an informal settlement conference pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.06. If a hearing is not requested within the time provided bythe statute, the decision will stand. If you have any concerns regarding this issue, you may contact Holly Textor at 602-542- 6181. Sincerely, KPaCi Joann Cota, Assistant Director Business Services Division Cc: Attorney General’s Office Notary File State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 Notary Recommendation Cheryl A. Krough Mark Abshire alleges that the notary improperly notarized a documenttitled “Deplyment Form”that wasto be filed in a legal proceeding for the state of Louisianna. The complainant claims the signer was not in the Notary’s presence when the Notarized the form was completed. Notary did respond to the complaint. Notary’s journalis deficient becauseit’s lacking Date notarized, time ofnotarization, and they failed to identify the notarial service performed and the type/nameofthe document. Andthe type ofID is not provided for any of them either as well asleavingthefee line blank. Personal knowledgeis not available. Signer waslikely not present. Notary failed to complete the jurat at the time her signature andseal are affixed. Notary executed a statement known to be false, because she likely did not administer the jurat oath. Notary failed to administer the jurat oath required when performingajurat. I recommenda revocation ofthe notary’s commission effective immediately for: 1. The Notary failed to record requisite information in her journal. A.R.S. §41-319. 2. Execution of a statement known to be false. A.R.S. §41-330(A)(10). 3. Execution ofajurat notarial certificate on a document that contains blanks. A.R.S. § 41-328(A) 4. The Notary Failed to fully and faithfully discharge the duties or responsibilities required of anotary public. A.R.S. § 41-330(A)(4). | Liffed {Lt 07/01/2008 ee Texfor Date Accept/Deny Joann Cota Date SIGNER'S PRINTED NAME; Scottichzol Beraard SIGNER'SweLO Lnad. DayTIME PHONE:(337 )Yi2Q-acve En SIGNER'S aeADDRESS: Dy State/Zip Cope 301 hebara St. Apt. Ye eoae LA 70506 “NoTariat Séavice: ©) Jurar !Q) AcKNOWLEDGMENT [4 OATH Dare Norarep: TIME oF Notarwzarion: LIAM] FEE: $ a OTHER (Describe): OPM Type/NAME OF DOCUMENT: Date oF DOCUMENT: | e -Personatty Known:lod Tssutnc GOVERNMENT AGENCY: =] | Tyee oF ID: LJ s S ID Numer: Exp. Dave: eS 3 52 | ComMENTs, SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS: a | SIGNER'S PRINTED NAME: FSIGNER'S SIGNA’ Daytime PHONE: MWUuntoDd, Cosger CXAnebs Ce [23080-0629 BAB SicNeR's COMPLETE SDRESS Ciry Stare/Zp Cope \Ooul & owouethe ST. WWl\eurice. LA JOSSsS” NotaRIAL Service: (J Jurat CI AcKNOWLEDGMENT (© OaTH Dare Notarzep: Time or Norarwarion: OAM] Fee: $ L OTHER (Descrine): (1PM Type/NAME OF DOCUMENT: DaTE OF DOCUMENT: PERSONALLY Known: Li Issuinc GOVERNMENT AGENCY: Ze TyreoF ID: 2 S ID Numer: Exp. DATE: as es COMMENTS, SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS: a Printgp N, a heubeLober Kedrwy Daytime PHONE: G37)HESSDES ‘SIGNER's COMPLETENe SseTHhifecboy - StaTe/Zip Cope — s v Bel LblinRll Libel Li Pe5sOF Norarial Service: ()Jurat QO) AcKNowLepcMENT OaTH Dare Norarizep: Time of Notarization: QAM] Fee: $ (J OTHER (DescriBe): PM Type/NAme OF DocuMENT: Date oF DocumENT: PERSONALLY Known: Lod TssuinG GOVERNMENT AGENCY: Za Tyre or ID: LY ‘35 ID Numper: Exp, DATE: =e os CoMMENTS, SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS! ee 'SIGNER'S PRINTED we SicNeR' sae /,17A Daytime Po! Er eae [VvN_ Lt pod LY G27). ZLal,YL SIGNER CoMPLETE ADDRESS: , STATEZP CODE cu papweoed cp Zitveft La FOsn3 NotariaL Service: GQ Jurat ©) AckNowLeDGMENT © OaTH Dare Notarmep: Time or Notarization: OAM] Fre: $ L) OTHER(Descripe): OPM | Type/NAaMe oF DocuMENT: Date oF DoCUMENT: PERSONALLY Known: bed IssuinG GOVERNMENT AGENCY: za Tyre or ID: LJ g S ID Numarr: Exp. Dare: = = oy COMMENTS, SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS: a AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NorariES * ALL STATES RECORDBooK ® * 6/ Fac 60254240007Se Notary ComplaintPhone: 602-542-4758 Wes obviously transmitied alectronically since all signatures were on the Same day. | canSend anyone's signature electronically, but it shouldn't be notarized, | believe this to be a violation of the Arizona Notary Public Reference Handbook and | amasking for an investigation fo revoke her notary seal. Since this incident has crossed statalines, | will pursue if this matter should be given to Federal Authorities also. | would ask you fo investigate ALL notaries that work at Redilex Traffic systems inScottsdale, AZ to see if there are similar violations. Regards, FY! — We have no shortage of notaries in the city of Lafayette that coukt have bsen used. JAN BREWER SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF ARIZONA January 25, 2008 Re: Cheryl A. Krough, Notary Public Dear Mr. Abshire, The Secretary of State has received your letter of complaint against Cheryl A. Krough, Notary Public in Arizona. Your complaint has been forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office for investigation pursuant to A.R.S. §41-331. Once the investigation has been completed, the Secretary of State’s Office will make a determination as to what type of action is necessary based on the findings of any violation of notary statute. Please be aware that an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office is confidential while it is pending, and may be a lengthy process; taking around 120 days. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 602-542-6181. Business Services Division Cc: Attorney General’s Office Notary File State Capitol: 1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 Telephone (602) 542-6187 Fax (602) 542-4366 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen. I am not a party to this action; my business address is 555 South Flower Street, 29" Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. On March 15, 2013, I caused the foregoing document described as APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICEto be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressedas follows: [Xx] [X] SEE ATTACHED SERVICELIST (BY OVERNIGHT-FEDERAL EXPRESS) The attached documentis being filed by delivery to a commoncarrier promising overnight delivery as shown onthe carrier’s receipt pursuant to CRC 8.25. (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondenceor mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumedinvalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter dateis more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on March 15, 2013 at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws .of the State of California that the aboveis true andcorrect. Lf;Hl Cheryl AA. 1781702.1 SERVICE LIST Cal Saunders City of Inglewood OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY One W.Manchester Blvd., #860 Inglewood, California 90301 Tel: (310) 412-5372 Attorneys for Respondent By U.S. Mail Kira Klatchko BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92201 Tel: (760) 568-2611 Fax: (760) 340-6698 Attorneys for Respondent By U.S. Mail John J. Jackman LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. JACKMAN 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 Culver City, California 90230 Tel: (818) 268-8243 Fax: (661) 288-1729 johnjay(@jackmanlawgroup.com Co-Counsel for Appellant By U.S. Mail Office of the Clerk CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 Telephone: 415-865-7000 Original and nine copies (CRC 8.44) By Fed Ex 1781702.1 Second District, Division Three COURT OF APPEAL Ronald Reagan State Building 300 S. Spring St., Second Floor Los Angeles, California 90013 By U.S. Mail LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 111 N.Hill St., Dept. 607 Los Angeles, CA 90012 By U.S. Mail Commissioner John Johnson LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT Inglewood Courthouse One RegentSt., Inglewood, CA 90301 By U.S. Mail 1781702.1
