Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Motion for Issuance of Alternative Writ of Mandate



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

LUCERO LUNA, MICHAEL O. GRADY,                        Case No. CV182225
CHRISTOPHER R. JOSLYN, MICHAEL M. OHRE,             
DR. PAUL LEE, RABBI PHILIP POSNER,                 MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
REV. HERB SCHMIDT,                              ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE
                                                   (CCP. Sec. 1085, 1086)               
Petitioners,                                               
Vs.                                                  
                                                DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015
GIANG NGUYEN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES         TIME: 8:30AM
AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,             DEPT: 4
           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/

      To the Respondent and counsel for Respondent:
      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 7, 2015 at 8:30am in Department 4, Petitioners will move the court for the Issuance of the Alternative Writ of Mandate.  This motion will be based upon the Petitioners’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Issuance of the Alternative Writ of Mandate,  the Petitioners’ Second Request for Judicial Notice, and the following documents filed herein on August 6, 2015: (1) Petition for Writ of Mandate; (2) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support for Petition of Writ of Mandate; and (3) Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice.
      Petitioners made ex parte application for Issuance of the Alternative Writ of Mandate on August 7, 2015 before Honorable Robert Atack.  Judge Atack denied the application.
     
Dated: August 25, 2015
                                    _________________________________
Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners’

Petitioners' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Issuance of the Alternative Writ of Mandate



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

LUCERO LUNA, MICHAEL O. GRADY,                        Case No. CV182225
CHRISTOPHER R. JOSLYN, MICHAEL M. OHRE,             
DR. PAUL LEE, RABBI PHILIP POSNER,             PETITIONERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
REV. HERB SCHMIDT,                            AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
                                                FOR ISSUANCE OF THE ALTERNATIVE                                                             WRIT OF MANDATE
Petitioners,                                               
Vs.                                                  
                                                DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015
GIANG NGUYEN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES         TIME: 8:30AM
AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,             DEPT: 4
           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/

      On August 6, 2015, the day the Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in this case, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed its Statement of Interest in Bell vs. City of Boise, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-540-REB, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (“Statement of Interest”)
The instant Petitioners are filing their second request for judicial notice concerning this document.
The Statement of Interest argues that prohibiting public sleeping where adequate shelter space is not available amounts to criminalization of the status of homelessness and violates the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.  The Department of Justice states that “it should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a ‘universal and unavoidable consequence of being human’ violates the Eighth Amendment”.  Id., p.11
Thus the federal government clearly supports the instant petition seeking to have this court apply “considerations of human decency in the treatment of the homeless.”  (Petitioners Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate filed August 6, 2015, 3:6-7.)
The California Supreme Court’s statement concerning “the right to live on public property” and its endorsement of “the legislature’s allocation of responsibility to assist destitute persons to counties...” (Id., 4:13-18) is consistent with the position taken by the United States Justice Department in Bell, supra.  Both of these entities obviously seek to (1) prevent the legal system from continuing to exacerbate the culture of cruelty that is growing apace in American society, and (2) impose a governmental duty to establish safe and legal sleeping sites for people whose indigent status precludes them from purchasing the right to occupy such a site.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated, Petitioners respectfully request that this court issue the Alternative Writ of Mandate, thus requiring the County of Santa Cruz to state their position on this urgent matter of public interest, and to support that position.

Dated: August 25, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
                              _______________________________
Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners 

Petitioners Second Request for Judicial Notice



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

LUCERO LUNA, MICHAEL O. GRADY,                        Case No. CV182225
CHRISTOPHER R. JOSLYN, MICHAEL M. OHRE,             
DR. PAUL LEE, RABBI PHILIP POSNER,                 PETITIONERS’ SECOND REQUEST
REV. HERB SCHMIDT,                                    FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
                                                 (EVIDENCE CODE SEC. 452 AND 453)              
Petitioners,                                               
Vs.                                                  
                                                DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015
GIANG NGUYEN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES         TIME: 8:30AM
AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,             DEPT: 4
           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/

      Pursuant to Evidence Code Sec. 452 and 453, Petitioners request that the court take judicial notice of the Statement of Interest in the pending case of Bell vs. City of Boise, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-540-REB, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, filed by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.  A true copy of the Statement of Interest is attached hereto.

Dated: August 25, 2015
                                    _______________________________
Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners

Peremptory Challenge to Hon. John Gallagher



Sunday, August 23, 2015

Petition for Writ of Mandate - Santa Clara County



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

DIANA CLINTON, ZINNIA GARCIA,                      Case No.
RAUL SILVA, and KELLY TASKER,         
                                               PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE                                                              (CCP. Sec. 1086)
            Petitioners,                                               

Vs.                                                  

SARA CODY, DIRECTOR OF THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
                                                           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/

      Petitioners respectfully request and petition the court for the issuance of a Writ of Mandate, and allege the following:
      1. Petitioner Diana Clinton and Zinnia Garcia are homeless women residing and paying taxes in Santa Clara County. Petitioners Raul Silva and Kelly Tasker are homeless men residing and paying taxes in Santa Clara County.
2. The homeless Petitioners and most other homeless residents of Santa Clara County face constant threat of harassment, criminalization, and sleep-deprivation by the police, sheriffs, and the courts for the mere act of sleeping out of doors on public or private property. Such individuals are forced to sleep outdoors because they cannot afford to pay for any right to a sleeping site.
      3. Respondent Sara Cody is the Director of the Santa Clara County Public Health Department, and as such is charged with providing services to protect the health of all indigent residents of Santa Clara County.
      4. The homeless Petitioners and a vast majority of all other homeless residents in Santa Clara County have no place in the county where they can sleep without being subjected to harassment, sleep-deprivation, and criminal prosecution. There are only a small number of shelter beds available at any given time in the County of Santa Clara. As reported by the City of San Jose, for example, the total number of such shelter spaces in the city is only 24% of the total number of homeless individuals residing in the city; thus, more than three-fourths must fend for themselves and sleep where it is now illegal to do so.
5. The Petitioners seek to uphold the public’s duty to care for the health of the poor, and the relief sought herein will be a benefit to the general public as well as to the homeless Petitioners and all other homeless people in the county.
6. Part of Respondent’s duty to protect the health of poor people is to provide a place to sleep, because the deprivation of sleep and other forms of harassment by police, sheriffs, and other public authorities cause physical and psychological illness, and frustrate the ability of homeless people to attend to their personal needs.
7. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law by which to obtain a safe place to sleep undisturbed.
      8. The homeless Petitioners and most other homeless residents of Santa Clara County will continue to suffer the ill effects of harassment and sleep-deprivation if the Writ is not issued.

      WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that an alternative Writ of Mandate be issued commanding Respondent to provide adequate and appropriate places in Santa Clara County for homeless individuals to sleep safely each night between the hours of 8p.m. to 7a.m., or to show cause before this court at a time and place to be designated why it has not done so; that thereafter this court issue its peremptory Writ therefor; that Petitioners be awarded their costs of suit; and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: August 14, 2015                    _________________________________
                                          Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners

VERIFICATION
      I, Ed Frey, declare the following:
      All of the statements set out in the within Petition for Writ of Mandate are true, except those statements made upon information and belief, and as to such statements, I believe them to be true.
      I execute this Verification on behalf of all the Petitioners because I am at least equally aware with them of the facts and local history concerning efforts to obtain the right to a place for homeless people to sleep, and they reside outside the county where I maintain my office.
      I declare the above to be true under penalty of perjury.
      Executed this 14th day of August 2015 at Santa Cruz, California.
                                         
___________________________
                                          Ed Frey

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate - Santa Clara County



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

DIANA CLINTON, ZINNIA GARCIA                    Case No.
RAUL SILVA, and KELLY TASKER, 
                                                 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
            Petitioners,                        AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF  
                                                PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Vs.                                                  
                                               
SARA CODY, DIRECTOR OF THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/

I. INTRODUCTION

      For every person in California who lacks a property right in a sleeping site and is forced to sleep outdoors on real property she does not own or control, it is illegal to sleep.  There is not a single square inch of real property in the entire state of California, public or private, where such a person can rest or sleep without being subjected to criminal liability.  Penal Code Sec. 647(e) — “unlawful lodging” (and a long list of municipal “camping bans”). This petition seeks to enforce the Respondent’s statutory duty to provide a safe, legal place to sleep for them. 
      Local homeless activists have exhausted their legal remedies in the Sixth Appellate District by contending in criminal court that sec. 647(e), on its face and as applied, violates several state and federal constitutional provisions.  These contentions have all been rejected, and Petitioners do not seek to re-assert them here. A brief recounting of the recent legal efforts, however, may be helpful in setting the present context concerning the right to sleep.
      Gary Allen Johnson, a homeless man, slept in a peaceful group sleep-in protest in the summer of 2010 in front of the Santa Cruz County courthouse.  After the Superior Court rejected his constitutional challenge to the resulting sec. 647(e) charge, he was found guilty of unlawful lodging.  The court sentenced him to six months’ jail.  People v. Johnson, Case No. M55745, Santa Cruz County Superior Court. Other protest participants received various punishments, up to six months in jail, for their participation.
      In late December, 2011 and early January, 2012 Mr. Johnson, this time acting alone, slept on a bench in front of the same courthouse for four separate nights occupying the bench only between the hours of 8pm to 7am the next morning.  Each night he affixed a sign to his body saying “Sleep is not a crime” The only other worldly possessions he had with him were the clothing he wore and the sleeping pad under his body.
      Once again he was charged with unlawful lodging under sec. 647(e), and once again his pre-trial constitutional challenge was denied. He was then found guilty on four counts. The court sentenced him to two years’ jail. Upon appeal before the Appellate Division of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Case No. AP001660, the court issued its opinion rejecting all constitutional claims.  See the court’s opinion (“Ruling on Appeal”) attached as Exhibit A to the Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice. The opinion denies what is manifestly undeniable—that the anti-lodging statute makes outdoor sleep illegal whenever the constabulary wishes it so; moreover, the opinion dishonors the right to express one’s self, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and several other constitutional provisions, both state and federal. The Sixth District Court of Appeal denied Johnson’s subsequent Petition for Transfer to the Court of Appeal in its order filed June 15, 2015 (Case No. HO42363—see Exhibit B to Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice). Johnson’s statutory appeal remedies are thus exhausted.
      In Johnson’s closing brief to the Appellate Division, counsel argued that, in the course of interpreting and applying constitutional principles, courts seem generally to suffer from an “ethical blockage that now largely prevents the courts from processing and applying considerations of human decency in the treatment of the homeless.” People v. Johnson AP001660, Appellate Division, Santa Cruz County Superior Court. Indeed, American courts generally are so loath to involve themselves in the issue of poor people’s right to sleep outdoors that there is not a single published appellate court decision going either way: Yes, the constitution protects the right to sleep or No, it does not.

      On August 6th, 2015, in an apparent effort to cut through that blockage, the United States Justice Department filed its Statement of Interest of the United States in the case of Bell vs. City of Boise, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-540-REB, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, a true copy of which is attached to petitioners’ request for judicial notice as Exhibit C (“Statement of Interest”).
      The federal government contends that where, as here, sufficient shelter space is unavailable for large numbers of homeless individuals, enforcement of the ordinances that prohibit temporary “dwelling, lodging or residence” on any property, public or private, even in a private motor vehicle, “amounts to the criminalization of homelessness, in violation of the Eighth Amendment” prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Statement of Interest, P.4) (The Boise ordinances are set out in language that is well-nigh identical to California Penal Code Sec. 647(e) and countless local ordinances in Santa Clara County and throughout the State of California.  (Statement of Interest, P.3, fn.7 and P.4).
      Although the instant action seeks no constitutional ruling, petitioners here contend that a separate California statutory scheme supports the Statement of Interests reasoning and sentiment, and that those statutes alone compel each county in the state to provide a safe, legal sleeping site for those who do not have a property right in such a site.  As set out below, the California Supreme Court specifically endorses that statutory duty.

II. ARGUMENT
A. Standing of Petitioners

      Petitioners all have standing to bring this CCP. Sec. 1086 representative proceeding. Where the writ would compel enforcement of a public duty, a petitioner need not show any special interest in the result; it is sufficient that the question is one of public right, sought to be enforced by a citizen. Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 144; Brown v. Crandall (2011)198 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-15; Hector F. v. El Centro Elem. School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 331, 342. The instant Petitioners are homeless and thus clearly have a special personal interest as well as a citizen’s interest in the issuance of a writ of mandate.

B. Respondent Has a Statutory Duty to Provide Homeless
People with a Safe, Legal Place to Sleep

      The following text of this Sec. B is taken nearly verbatim from the supporting memorandum of points and authorities in a sister case filed August 6, 2015 in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, entitled Luna, et al v. County of Santa Cruz, etc., Case No. CV182225.
      Although the recited facts and circumstances arise specifically in Santa Cruz County, the lack of shelter space for homeless persons is a state-wide and nation-wide phenomenon.  In the City of San Jose, for example, the most recent figures available show that, “on any given night”, 4,770 homeless individuals in San Jose (76% of the city homeless population) “reside outdoors on the street, in parks, cars, illegal encampments, and other places not meant for habitation.” (See the first page at “Homelessness in San Jose: Frequently Asked Questions” (www.sanjoseca.gov/documentcenter/view19131).
The instant proceeding is based on statutes, not a constitutional provision, but those statutes can fairly be characterized as a mandate for each county to apply considerations of human decency and compassion.  As stated in Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 17000;
                  Every county...shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions.

      In Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 cal.4th 1069 the court cited this statute and clearly implied that it creates an obligation on the part of every county in California to provide safe, legal sleeping sites for all indigent persons who lack a place to sleep and cannot afford one. The court identified that duty in the following language:
                  Petitioners’ argument that Santa Ana may not deny homeless persons the right to live on public property anywhere in the city unless it provides alternative accommodations also overlooks the legislature’s allocation of responsibility to assist destitute persons to counties (Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 17000-17001.5.) If the inability of petitioners and other homeless persons in Santa Ana to afford housing accounts for their need to “camp” on public property, their recourse lies not with the city, but with the county under those statutory provisions.  Id. at 1104, fn. 18

No county was a party in Tobe, so Respondent might urge the court to ignore this language as “mere dicta”, but significantly, counsel is unable to locate any disavowal of the statement, either by the California Supreme Court or any other court. At the very least, this passage obliges this court to (1) acknowledge that it creates a justiciable issue and (2) render a decision on the merits.
In addition to this empathy-driven statutory scheme, the California Legislature more recently issued a further declaration asserting the urgent need to provide housing and a “suitable living environment for every Californian”, that such a task “requires the cooperation of all levels of government”, and that local and state governments have a “responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate…” the fulfillment of this urgent need.  Govt. Code sec. 65580(a), (c) and (d).
Courts ought not lightly reject these clear ethical mandates set down by the Legislature, particularly those which are expressly acknowledged by the highest court in the state.  We, the lawyers and judges, all have an obligation to respond to them, even if they are couched in general terms, because the intent to ameliorate the plight of the homeless is clear. We ought also to consider and respond to the countless and growing denunciations of the culture of cruelty growing up around us in our public and private institutions and corporations.  The value of human life itself is under siege, and nowhere is that threat more manifest than in the way we treat our untouchables.
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, in that portion of its 2014-2015 Final Report entitled “Recipe for Failure: Shrinking Budgets and Increasing Needs for Emergency Homeless Shelters” (the “Grand Jury Report”), recites the fact that there is only one shelter bed available in Santa Cruz County for every ten homeless people (Id., p.7). The Grand Jury Report describes “decades of failures…” in local efforts to remedy this deplorable situation (Id., p. 9).
In Appendix A, the Grand Jury refers to the 1970s efforts of the Santa Cruz Citizens Committee for the Homeless, and to a 1980s county-commissioned report which examined the “undesirable transient element” and the “street people”. The upshot of the Grand Jury Report, however, is that the only progress made to date is the current politically correct language now employed to describe homeless people.
The Grand Jury Report (p. 4) also states the following:
A recent report by the University California Berkeley Law Policy Advocacy Clinic addressing California’s new vagrancy laws found that California cities have enacted a large number of anti-homeless laws to address the escalating homeless population. The report concluded that criminalization harms homeless people and perpetuates poverty by restricting access to the social safety net, affordable housing, and employment opportunities” and that “enforcement of such laws is expensive, directing limited resources away from efforts that would effectively and humanely reduce homelessness.”

The Grand Jury Report (p. 12) concludes that there is an “increasing need for emergency shelters in Santa Cruz County”, and states that(p. 1) “The Grand Jury recommends that facilities, funding and staffing of all emergency shelters in the City of Santa Cruz be reassessed to adequately meet the acute needs of the persistently high homeless population.” (They probably meant “county” of Santa Cruz, in view of the need to serve the south county as well as the north).
Neither Respondent nor any other agent or agency of the county has made any effective effort to mitigate this “acute” situation; instead, they ignore their duty established in Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 17000 that “Every county… shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons…” (emphasis added), as well as the instruction set out in another provision of that statutory scheme that, in carrying out the county’s obligation to protect the health of the poor, “‘medical care’ shall include… other remedial care, not necessarily medical.” Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 14059. It is likely that the California Supreme Court’s recitation of the counties’ duty to provide a sleeping site is based in part on this latter provision.
As stated in In Re Eichorn (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 382, 389, “sleep is a physiological need, not an option for humans. It is common knowledge that loss of sleep produces a host of physical and mental problems.”
We should all take heed, however, that the defense of necessity for outdoor sleepers (established by Eichorn), while it appears to be a sincere attempt to ameliorate the suffering and the oppression, actually contributes little by way of mitigation. On the contrary, it arguably creates a façade to conceal and enable the ongoing harassment, deprivation of sleep, criminal prosecution, and other forms of public hounding of poor people, all at great expense to the taxpayers as well as the homeless. The abject cruelty of waking a sleeper, ousting her from her sleeping site, forcing her to face immediate jail or multiple, burdensome court appearances, only to ultimately exonerate her on the ground that she actually needed to sleep, is exceeded only by its absurdity.
C. MANDATE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY
As established above, Respondent has a statutory duty to provide sleeping sites for homeless people, but is failing to perform that duty. Under such circumstances, Writ of Mandate is the appropriate remedy. CCP secs. 1085, 1086.

D. LACK OF FUNDS IS NOT A VALID DEFENSE
It is no defense to this Petition that the county lacks funding to provide safe places for the homeless to sleep. If a legal duty is involved, financial distress cannot justify the failure to perform the duty. May v. Bd. Of Dir. Of El Camino Irr. Dist. (1949)34 Cal.2d. 125. See generally, 8 Witkin: California Procedure: Extraordinary Writs, sec. 74. Further, as pointed out in the recent UC Berkeley Report cited in the Grand Jury Report, enforcement of anti-sleeping laws incurs substantial public expense. (Grand Jury Report, p. 4). Such public expense would be avoided if the county carried out its duty to provide sleeping sites.

III. CONCLUSION
This court ought not disregard the Supreme Court’s declaration in Tobe that if “the inability of … homeless persons to afford housing …” accounts for their need to “camp” outdoors, their “recourse” lies … with the county, based on the above-cited provisions of the Welfare & Institutions Code.
The present practice of sending peace officers out in the middle of the night to breach the peace at the behest of the merchants or others who are offended by the sight of homeless people is retrograde social policy, demonstrates contempt for humane solutions, and ignores the feelings of outright rejection that such practice must induce in people who have no physical home.
“Unlawful lodging” is merely the current euphemism in the ongoing process of criminalizing the indigent. The day-to-day plight of homeless people is captured well by law professor Jeremy Waldron:

“No one is free to perform an action unless there is somewhere he is free to perform it. Since we are embodied beings, we always have a location… Now one question we face as a society—a broad question of justice and social policy—is whether we are willing to tolerate an economic system in which large numbers of people are homeless. Since the answer is evidently, “Yes,” the question that remains is whether we are willing to allow those who are in this predicament to act as free agents, looking after their own needs in public places—the only space available to them. It is a deeply frightening fact about the modern United States that those who have homes and jobs are willing to answer “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second. (Emphasis in original) Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom, 39 UCLA L.Rev. 295, 296, 304.

In essence, this court’s decision will constitute a choice between two competing social values: (1) the Social Darwinism advocated by the forces of commerce and finance and the Take-Back-Our-Towners on the one hand, and, (2) ethical and humane treatment of human beings on the other.
For all the reasons set out above, the Alternative Writ of Mandate should be issued by this honorable court.
Dated: August 14, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
                                          _________________________________
                                          Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners

VERIFICATION

      All of the statements of fact set out in the within Memorandum of Points and Authorities are true, except those statements made upon information and belief, and as to such statements, I believe them to be true.
      I execute this Verification on behalf of all the Petitioners because I am at least equally aware with them of the facts and recent local history concerning efforts to obtain the right to a place for homeless people to sleep, and they reside outside the county where my office is located.
      I declare the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this 14th day of August 2015 at Santa Cruz, California.

                                          __________________________________
                                          Ed Frey

Petitioners' Request for Judicial Notice - Santa Clara County



ED FREY (SBN 42814)
4630 Soquel Drive, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073
(831) 479-8911
(fax) 479-8174

Attorney for Petitioners







SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

DIANA CLINTON, ZINNIA GARCIA                          Case No.
RAUL SILVA, and KELLY TASKER,              
                                                PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR
         Petitioners,                               JUDICIAL NOTICE
                                               
Vs.                                                  
                                               
SARA CODY, DIRECTOR OF THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
           
Respondent.
__________________________________________/


      Pursuant to Evid. Code sec. 452 and 453, Petitioners request that the court take judicial notice of the following documents:
      1. Ruling on Appeal issued April 17, 2015 by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz, Appellate Case No. AP 001660, People v. Gary Allen Johnson. A true copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
      2. Order by the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, filed June 15, 2015 in Case No. H042363 in People v. Gary Allen Johnson. A true copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
      3. The August 6, 2015 Statement of Interest of the United States in Bell v. City of Boise, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-540-REB, U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. A true copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Dated: August 14, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

                                          __________________________________
                                          Ed Frey, Attorney for Petitioners