Dennis Ettlin, Pro Se 27222 Paseo Lomita San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 310-795-9507 dennis@ettlin.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISIONSANTA ANA

Case No. 8:14-cv-00324-DOC-(JPRx)!Dennis ETTLIN, an individual;

Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ANTONOVICH, KNABE, MOLINA AND YAROSLAVSKYS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE !

vs.

Kamala Harris, an individual, James Otero, an individual, Otis D. Wright, II, an individual, George H. King, an individual, Dolly M. Gee, an individual, Jan Levine, an individual, Gloria Molina, an individual, Zev Yaroslavsky, an individual, Don Knabe, an individual, Michael Antonovich, an individual, United States of America, State of California, County of Los Angeles, Chris Ryan Legal, Sr. Does 5-10,

(any judge assigned to this case who received Judicial Benefits)!

Defendants!

DOE #1, Derek Hunt DOE #2, Tani Cantil-Sakauye DOE #3, Kathleen E. O'Leary DOE #4, Tim Donnelly

Date: May 5, 2014

Time: 8:30 AM Ctrm: 9D (Hon. David O. Carter)!

ii Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion ii Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

II. RELEVANT FACTS ......................................................................................... 1

III. STATUS AS PERSON OR OFFICIALS .......................................................... 2

IV. PROTECTED ACTIVITY ................................................................................. 2

V. LIKLIHOOD OF PREVAILING ...................................................................... 4

VI. EXEMPTIONS .................................................................................................. 4

A. FIRST CRITERION - EXEMPT .................................................................. 4

B. SECOND CRITERION -- EXEMPT ............................................................ 5

C. THIRD CRITERION EXEMPT ................................................................. 5

VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 6

TABLE OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A-C Reserved

APPENDIX D CONTRACT BETWEEN COUNTY AND COURT

APPENDIX E SENATE PRO TEM CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 5

1 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 1 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Supervisors anti-SLAPP motion is again frivolous and improper.

The payment of criminal bribes is not protected activity. Plaintiff will prevail.

Plaintiff meets ALL criteria for 425.17 exemption from anti-SLAPP motions.

Legislative free-speech immunity did not protect the City of Bell officials

from phantom meetings. Legislative immunity did not protect the Defendant

Supervisors after Sturgeon I. SBX2_11 does not protect Defendant Supervisors

from criminal payments to judges whose terms started in 2010, 2012 or 2014.

Legislative immunity does not protect the Defendant Supervisors from payment of

phantom wages that violate IRS and ERISA regulations. Legislative immunity will

not protect the Defendant Supervisors from the common good sense of jurors.

Defendant Supervisors motion is fully consistent with the SLAPP suits used

by billion-dollar bullies to silence their critics. Plaintiffs suit is encouraged by the

Fourth Appellate Courts Sturgeon II decision and is in the public interest.

Sturgeon himself has filed a new suit, dubbed by some as Sturgeon IV, to stop the

illegal county bribes. Plaintiffs civil rights are no less valuable than those of the

Defendants. Plaintiff gains little or nothing from this suit.

II. RELEVANT FACTS Defendant Supervisors statement of relevant facts has nothing to do with the

SLAPP allegation. This anti-SLAPP motion was originally filed in Superior Court

to halt discovery and divert attention from the real legal issues at stake in this case.

Furthermore, the assertion that Plaintiff is relitigating prior and pending lawsuits is

not true and is unsettled by the courts. Defendant Supervisors again fail to mention

SBX2_11 or the encouragement in Sturgeon II for taxpayers to file suits like this

one. Sturgeon himself filed a new suit, Sturgeon IV, on April 1, 2014.

This improper SLAPP action is no different than Defendant Supervisors

refusal to comply with discovery rules while in state court, their improper removal

to Federal Court, or their inappropriate noticing of the dockets in the Occupy Los

2 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 2 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

Angeles cases. These four actions certainly qualify as the kind of procedural abuse

that Judge Kozinski describes in his opinions on SLAPP.

III. STATUS AS PERSON OR OFFICIALS Plaintiffs complaint is based on the criminal actions of Defendant

Supervisors as persons. In their Motion To Dismiss, Defendant Supervisors

claim immunity as public officials for their First Amendment deliberative and

voting functions. In this Motion to Strike, Defendant Supervisors seem to

acknowledge that legislative immunity might not be enough, and admit they might

be individual persons; [I]t is well established that public officials are persons

protected by 425.16.

Plaintiff asserts those same persons are subject to RICO and civil rights

violations lawsuits. In their Reply, Defendant Supervisors will probably discover

their retroactive immunity of SBX2_11.

IV. PROTECTED ACTIVITY Defendants do not have the free speech right to cry FIRE in a crowded

theatre. They do not have absolute immunity. There are time, place and manner

restrictions that apply. As early as 1988, County Counsel Frank Zolin

acknowledged that the payments were illegal (Plaintiffs Complaint, page A-213,

second paragraph). Failure by Defendant Harris to address these issues even in her

own defense also denies justice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff understands the First Amendment to include the right to say

nothing. Legislative free-speech immunity did not protect the City of Bell officials

from phantom meeting payments. Legislative immunity did not protect the

Defendant Supervisors after Sturgeon I. SBX2_11 immunity does not protect

Defendant Supervisors from criminal payments to judges whose terms started in

2010, 2012 or 2014.

3 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 3 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

Plaintiff is not aware of any statements or opinions prior to this lawsuit made

in either an official capacity or personally by Defendant Supervisors on the issues

of supplemental judicial payments or their own county salaries. Plaintiff is not

aware of any public statements by Defendant Supervisors regarding the Sturgeon

cases or SBX2_11. Plaintiffs actions have not in any way impaired Defendants

protected activities.

Defendant Supervisors Motion to Dismiss argues that defendants are public

officials and the relevant facts are the Occupy Los Angeles activities. Here they

change their tune and argue the defendants are persons and the relevant facts are

budget discussions and votes.

Plaintiffs case is not built on Defendant Supervisors voting record for

budget or policy matters. References to the budget are primarily to document the

payments and how they are reflected and characterized to the public in the budget.

Plaintiffs allegation is completely consistent with the Court of Appeals focus in

Tuszynska v. Cunningham, 199 Cal. App. 4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011), on the

defendants activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liability and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning. The activity in this case

is actual payment to the judges of a phantom wage, which fraudulently violates

IRS rules, government code 68206.6 and campaign finance Form 700. The

payment to Defendant Levine specifically, and indeed, ALL county judges

deprived Plaintiff of Due Process in any matter where the County has an interest.

Bribery, IRS fraud and denial of Due Process are NOT activities protected

by 425.16. Appendix D clarifies further that; the vote, the resolution and the

agreement (all protected activities) bear no relation to the actual county

implementation of Govt. Code 68206.6. Criminal activity cannot hide behind the

First Amendment or legislative immunity. Appendix E shows even the legislative

Senate leader deemed the payments criminal.

4 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 4 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

V. LIKLIHOOD OF PREVAILING The contention by Defendant Supervisors that Plaintiff cannot prevail is

mere hollow blustering. Their only hope is that this court will not appoint counsel

for Plaintiff or that a bribed judge will rule in their favor. Since the Defendants

pay ALL the county judges, there is a good likelihood, that while in State Courts, a

biased judge or appellate justice will return the favor.

County Defendants contention might have some merit IF they had seriously

addressed Plaintiffs legal issues (the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)

analyses). The further contention that Sturgeon II is decided clearly in favor of the

Supervisors is completely false and self-serving. Plaintiff requests this Court

request a Certified Question from the Supreme Court of California to address the

constitutionality of each section of SBX2_11 and each argument of the CJP

analyses. Plaintiff will prevail on the strength of the CJP analyses.

Previous Attorneys General have also determined several times that

supplemental judicial benefits violate the constitution. Plaintiffs case against the

payments does not require a ruling from Defendant Harris. Defendant Harris,

however, is part of the RICO scheme that continues the payments for her own

personal political gain and denies due process to litigants.

VI. EXEMPTIONS Defendant Supervisors present a self-serving and inaccurate portrayal of the

exemptions under 425.17. Their gotcha approach to the exemption discussion is

a disservice to this court. Plaintiff meets ALL three criteria in 425.17(b)(1,2,3)

and is exempt from 425.16.

A. FIRST CRITERION - EXEMPT Plaintiffs personal relief is clearly stated (Complain 71:27). For any

awards to be placed in a charitable trust benefitting Plaintiffs children and such

non-profit organizations as he may designate. CA Family Law 3651 bias still

5 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 5 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

applies to the success of this complaint. Plaintiff benefits nothing from this suit.

Plaintiffs children are both over 21 and thus members of the public. Non-profit

organizations by definition are in the public interest.

As a Pro Se litigant, Plaintiff is not able to represent other members of the

public. However, the claims sought by Plaintiff against the Defendant Supervisors

are also available to most all members of the public who have been to California

Superior Courts on matters of family law, traffic tickets and land use issues. The

supposedly frivolous and vexatious individual suits now stalled before the biased

California Appellate are available to the general public. This court will set the

precedent for and expedite all those cases, including ones already filed by Daniel

Cooper and Anthony Locatelli. The Sturgeon IV case, state court BC541213 (filed

April 1, 2014), would be rendered moot by this case. Alternatively, the forcing

function of this court will provide a solution that addresses the criminal and

unconstitutional payments to judges.

B. SECOND CRITERION -- EXEMPT Ending the massive violation of Due Process and IRS fraud would confer very

significant benefits on the public, both collectively and individually. The most

immediate and obvious public benefit is that stated by the Sturgeon II court in its

summary and conclusion (Complaint A-157 to A158, 8:12, 11:5, 26:9). Upholding

the California Constitutional provisions regarding judicial payments, retroactive

immunity and Due Process are clearly in the public interest.

C. THIRD CRITERION EXEMPT Private enforcement is necessary and more fully articulated in Plaintiffs

request for appointment of counsel, Docket Item #21. Not only will no lawyer

antagonize their industry partners, the judiciary, by taking Plaintiffs case, the

Attorney General and none of the county District Attorneys will take on the judges

or the other political figures whose salaries might also be linked to a judges salary.

6 Plaintiffs Response to anti-SLAPP Strike Motion 6 Ettlin_Harris_SLAPP Response-r2b.docx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Den

nis E

ttlin

, Pr

o Se

Defendant Supervisors presented no evidence that this lawsuit has any

significant burden on Defendant Supervisors as public officials or as persons and

thus not deterred their speech in any way. In contrast, this motion, if granted, will

greatly deter Plaintiff and other citizens from seeking redress under their First

Amendment rights. Plaintiffs resources are limited and pale in comparison to

Defendants resources.

Plaintiff understands that the Judicial Council funding Counsel for Jan

Levine has a nearly unlimited budget to support counsel McCormick for the Los

Angeles judges. Plaintiff further believes (but not yet confirmed) that Orange

County has recently and unilaterally terminated supplemental judicial payments

and therefore the Judicial Council may have retaliated and is not funding the

defense of Defendants Hunt and OLeary.

VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff seeks denial of Defendant

Supervisors anti-SLAPP Motion and denial of any legal fees and costs.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: April 11, 2014, __________________________

Dennis Ettlin, Pro Se 310-795-9507 dennis@ettlin.net

DAPPENDIX

D

APPENDIX

Dennis M Ettlin

Dennis M Ettlin

Dennis M Ettlin

Dennis M Ettlin

EAPPENDIX

E

APPENDIX

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOKESMAN JIM EVANS IN THE OFFICE OF SENATOR PRO-TEM DARYL STEINBERG

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:10 PMTo: Evans, JimSubject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11Importance: High

Jim: thank you for the response. Due to the technical legal nature of the questions and to protect our credibility as a news source, Full Disclosure Network prefers to credit the legal authorities who are presenting the opinions you provided here. If you are the one that prepared the answers to these questions and legal opinions, then we want to say so. Are you an attorney? If not, we would like to identify what legal authority you relied upon to provide the answers to the questions Was it the legislative counsel? The Judicial Council staff? I think our report would have great credibility if we quote the actual source of the opinion, in the absence of a formal opinion from the Attorney General.

Thank you again. We will hold off till we get confirmation from you. Leslie

Hi Leslie, The answers are from the Pro Tems office. And I am the only person (aside from the Pro Tem himself and our press secretary) who is authorized to speak for the Pro Tem. Thanks. Jre

----- Original Message -----From: Evans, JimTo: Leslie DuttonSent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:46 PMSubject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Leslie, Its fine to simply call me spokesman.

As far as your latest question:

The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's no need to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawful that which everyone in the world thought was already legal before the Sturgeon decision.Jre

Dennis M EttlinONLY 2 PAGES OF 7

An enacted statute has the force of law regardless whether a particular provision appears in a code book or not. (See e.g. Reese v. Kizer (1988), 46 Cal.3d 996, 999-1000.)

As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill, has Senator Steinberg's office requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the missing immunity clause? If not, will you request the Attorney General to for such a determination so that the intent of this legislation is made public?

No, such a request is unnecessary because the immunity clause was validly contained in the legislation.

Also, attached is a copy of the California Appellate Court decision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would be important to ask the the Attorney General's office for a determination (opinion) as to whether or not the embezzlement of public funds as described in this case under Pen. Code, 424 and any other sections of the penal code are enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 in Sections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and California Judges.

The citation you provided (54 Cal.App.3d 43) corresponds to the case of People v. Hames. The proper citation for the case of People v. Sperl is 54 Cal.App.3d 640. Regardless, it is unnecessary to seek an Attorney General opinion regarding criminal liability because the legislation expressly immunizes the government and others from prosecution under the narrow circumstances described in Section 5 of SBX2 11.

Here are the questions regarding the background on this Legislation. Your prompt response to this media inquiry will be appreciated, as the answers are to be included in the series we are currently producing SBX2 11 and the Government Code:

1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in the Government Code?

Uncodified language is often used when it seeks to address an isolated and short-lived issue. The threat of litigation seeking to impose liability relating to locally provided judicial benefits is such an issue.

2) Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and government officials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included in the Government Code?

Yes.

Dennis M Ettlin

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the service took place. My residence or business address is

27184 Ortega Highway, Suite 204 San Juan Capistrano, CA92675

On April 11, 2014, I served a copy of the following document

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ANTONOVICH, KNABE, MOLINA AND YAROSLAVSKYS ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE by first class mail, on the interested parties in this action (SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST FOR PARTIES), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated on the attached service list. I deposited such envelope in the mail. According to F.R.C.P. Rule 5(b)(2)(C), in which event service is complete upon mailing;

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 11, 2014 at Orange County, California,

________________________________ Sabrina Aziz

2

SERVICE LIST Case No. 8:14-cv-00324-DOC-(JPRx) Kamala Harris Counsel: Douglas E. Baxter, Esq., Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 619-645-2034 San Diego, CA 92101 Email: douglas.baxter@doj.ca.gov Jan Levine Counsel: Kevin McCormick, Esq. Benton, Orr, Duval, &Buckingham 39 North California Street, Post Office Box 1178 805-648-5111 Ventura CA 93001 Email: kmccormick@bentonorr.com Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky, Don Knabe, Michael Antonovich Counsel: Natalie Price, Esq. Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC 2677 North Main Street Suite 370 714-479-0180 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Email: nprice@lbaclaw.com Chris Ryan Legal, Sr. Counsel: Pro Se P. O. Box 94971 Pasadena, CA 91109 Authorized Email: chrislegal55@yahoo.com Derek Hunt, Kathleen E. OLeary Counsel: Sarah L. Overton Cummins, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Assoicates, P.C. 3801 Univerity Avenue, Suite 560 951-276-4420 Riverside, CA 92501 Email: soverton@cmda-law.com George King, James Otero, Dolly Gee, Otis Wright II Counsel: Robert Ira Lester AUSA Office of US Attorney Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 7516 213-894-2464 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: robert.lester@usdoj.gov Tani Cantil-Sakauye No appearance therefore cover sheet only: c/o Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 Email: Tim Donnelly No appearance therefore cover sheet only: c/o Capitol Office P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0033 Email: