Redondo Beach City Council
February 1, 2022

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2019
P.1 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF

GPAC MEMBERS
CONTACT: MICHAEL W. WEBB, CITY ATTORNEY

REFORMATTED HARD COPY GPAC ATTENDANCE LOG

x m n L
n K r o s - o
n m,
o c
m
s K
v+ x . a n x m w z
aQ u v, T - C v 3 C 3 m
3 A 3 . 3
c a
a
E = x
m u
ip v+ v! ci a c aa.
u ><
p Gl oo d m
v,
y 0
C
to O y, 3
p
3 ^ 5, n, 9
a ? G - a. U j - d j m = '- p
z
a a v m 2 °
F
3 ° 0 s p 0, c d m
p
p
m p
n7
n
CID
X X x X x D X X X X X X x
D
X X _ X X X X DX ! >
R1
V nv
zCD
m x x x x -. x
z
x C x x x x x
z
x x x x x x x
z w
n n
p
D
a
D D D .

N
f7lr
c c
x x m x
D D x x x X x x x x x X X
D x X x D x ; 1.v nw
x CO ci
X Q X X X C X x ? X X x X X X x X X X X X X ? X "'
D
3 in C D r n
a a
I a
m
CI c
X X X X X x X X D X x x X X X X X X C x x x x C • Z X con D n
ro iD l a
a a 4 v,

IT IT IT O CI
x x x x x x x x
n
x x x x x
A '
c
Av
c C x x x x x x X
m n
x N D
tn10 n iD D . 3, 1 a a a a
m
m
x
rn m m C
x
o
C c c x x x x x X x c x x C X x X C C X X C X X X ? X w D m m eo
v.

Cl. a
2 A m m a a a a a a
V V
U x x
O
C X X X X X X x X X X C X X x X C C X C C C X _ - X N n m
m m m 13 ! D m
rV\, p
a a a a a a a .. 0
m O
X C X x X X X X X x
C n XX X X X X X X X X X X C X X N n
a
a m a
co 00
x x x x x x
X C X c C X X x X X X c X X CaD X x X C
w
x x C X X X X X X _ n
a a s u. a a rxa CO aa
m m m
a v
X X C c C X X x X C X X H X C X X X C X C X X X x X X m fl m m m m
a a a n a
CO
a a w
In G1 m`
CO w
at X X at X X at X x X X C X C X at m m
m

C X X X
mv
C X X X X , w+ n
a a z a a w tt-ti
C c c rn v
X X x X n a X X C X X C X X X x X - - x X X X X X x d 0000NJ n o w
rn
X m m v
CO p) CO 2 2 N C)- 0 at x x x x x x c x x x X x x x X m m m x x x x x c C x Ql n a
Z 2 Z D iD
a a co a co a
co x
Go 00 m v
X X x X c X X X X x X x X X m X X m m X x X c x c X ci - J n c
a
2 Z Z 6 io
a a
co .-'tn
en cI
Pr CO o v
X X C X X x X X X X X
r' X X X X X m m X X X X x x x x ty, n Z Z a
a
OD , p
w
t •

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2019
P.1 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF

GPAC MEMBERS
CONTACT: MICHAEL W. WEBB, CITY ATTORNEY

COMMUNICATION FROM GPAC MEMBER KIRAN HASHMI

Jennifer Igercic
Subject: FW: Item P1. Removal of GPAC Members. 1/ 22/ 2019 Council Meeting Ili Mike,
I received the attached email related to Pl.

We will blue folder the item.

Thanks,
Eleanor
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kiran Hashmi < kiran.hashmi( a7gmail. com>
Date: January 21, 2019 at 9: 54:05 PM PST
To: Eleanor Manzano < [email protected]>
Cc: christian.horvath(a?redondo. org
Subject: Item Pl. Removal of GPAC Members. 1/ 22/2019 Council Meeting ile>"...
ts..-
redondox A7TN: Email is from an external. source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening aiachnrents or links
Hello Eleanor,
I see that the City Council will be reviewing attendance of the GPAC tomorrow. I have been absent for recent meetings, and wanted to share with the members my reason, as it was not due to lack of interest. A close family member had a medical emergency ( stroke, and 2 subsequent surgeries at Torrance Memorial), and required great care post-op. This family member was staying with me so that I could take care of their strict dietary needs, and rigorous medication cycles. I am happy to report that she is much better now, and back home. However, during this time, I was unable to attend meetings, as I was operating in 'survival mode', juggling responsibilities ofmy own young children and hosting/caring for family with serious medical needs. I had not realized that I should have been requesting " excusals" for missed meetings.

I am still interested in land use and planning issues for our City. And hope to contribute in the future.

Thank you,
Kiran Hashmi
1

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2019
P.1 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF

GPAC MEMBERS
CONTACT: MICHAEL W. WEBB, CITY ATTORNEY

COMMUNICATION FROM BARBARA EPSTEIN

To the City of Redondo Beach Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Director, Community Services Director, and other related officials January 22nd City Council Agenda Item P- 1 Citizens Resolution
Submitted By Barbara Epstein
Delegate, California Democratic Party, Assembly District 66 January 22, 2019
Whereas
General Plan Advisory Committee member Chris Voisey has violated the trust of the public by filing a fraudulent lawsuit on behalf of, and for the benefit of, a third party having business with the City Whereas
Chris Voisey engaged in harassing, unreasonably burdening, and intimidating public citizens in an illegal SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit
Whereas
Chris Voisey repeatedly and publicly harassed and intimidated public citizens, at rallies and other locations, seeking to exercise their rights to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
Therefore
Let it be resolved that Chris Voisey be asked to resign from his GPAC responsibilities due to incurable conflicts of interest Therefore
Let it further be resolved that Chris Voisey' s repeated political mischief be grounds for new, protective codes of behavior for all members of commissions and other offices of civic responsibility in the City of Redondo Beach
230 The Village # 305, R.B.
[email protected]

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 55 HON. MALCOLM H. MACKEY, JUDGE

ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY,

PLAINTIFFS,
VS.

BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017;
LINDA MOFFATT; RESCUE OUR
WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE CRAIG;
MARTIN HOLMES; NILS NEHRENHEIM,
AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.
__________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. BC 665330

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
NOVEMBER 20, 2018
APPEARANCES:

FOR PLAINTIFFS

ARNETTE TRAVIS
AND CHRIS VOISEY:

THE SUTTON LAW FIRM
BY: BRADLEY W. HERTZ

NICHOLAS SANDERS

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
22815 VENTURA BOULEVARD
SUITE 405
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 91364
(818) 593-2949

FOR DEFENDANTS

BILL BRAND, BILL

BRAND FOR MAYOR
2017, AND LINDA
MOFFAT:

GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES
BY: STEVAN COLIN

ATTORNEY AT LAW
801 PACIFIC AVENUE
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90813
(562) 436-9292
(SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL APPEARANCES)
REPORTED BY: LAURA D. GUERRERO, CSR NO. 7684

OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL (CONTINUED):

FOR DEFENDANT
NILS NEHRENHEIM:

CARLSON & MESSER LLP
BY: JEANNE L. ZIMMER

ATTORNEY AT LAW
5901 CENTURY BOULEVARD
SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045
(310) 242-2212

FOR DEFENDANTS

WAYNE CRAIG AND

RESCUE OUR
WATERFRONT:

BRN LEGAL
BY: BOBAK NAYEBDADASH

ATTORNEY AT LAW
136 MAIN STREET

SUITE A
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245
(310) 972-0972
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

I N D E X
NOVEMBER 20, 2018

CHRONOLOGICAL AND ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
(NONE)

EXHIBITS
(NONE)
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
1 CASE NUMBER: BC 665330
CASE NAME: TRAVIS VS. BRAND
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 20, 2018
DEPARTMENT 55 HON. MALCOLM H. MACKEY, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
REPORTER: LAURA D. GUERRERO, CSR 7684
TIME: 9:40 A.M.

THE COURT: OKAY. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.

MR. COLIN: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: THIS IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH OR
SOMETHING THIS MORNING.

OKAY. LET'S SEE, WE HAVE -- I GUESS WE HAVE
GOT TO LOOK AT THE -- THERE ARE TWO ISSUES: ONE, THE
CONTROL -- THE ITEM CONTROL; AND THE OTHER, LOOKING AT

CONTROL, OF COURSE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CORRECT?
MR. HERTZ: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND YOU WANT TO AMEND THE --

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE DEFENDANTS MUST AMEND THEIR
DOCUMENTS. OKAY. LET'S -- LET'S KEEP THE ISSUES
SEPARATE. LET'S DO THE -- WAS DEFENDANT RESCUE OUR

WATERFRONT A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW OR WAS IT A GENERAL? I GUESS THAT'S THE ISSUE.

OKAY. LET'S START OUT WITH THAT ONE, THEN WE'LL GO TO
CONTROL. LET ME PUT THIS AWAY.

OKAY. WE'LL GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE ISSUE,
BUT KEEP IT VERY SHORT. I MEAN, THERE'S -- I MEAN, WE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
2 COULD GO ON FOR A LONG PERIOD.

MR. HERTZ: UNDERSTOOD.

THE COURT: THERE'S A LOT OF -- A LOT OF
TWISTS AND TURNS IN THIS CASE, SO TO SPEAK. MR. -- YES, GO AHEAD.

MR. HERTZ: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

MAY I RESERVE TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL?
THE COURT: WELL, TEN MINUTES, IT'S GOING TO
GO VERY QUICKLY.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY. EVEN FIVE MINUTES FOR
REBUTTAL. JUST AS PLAINTIFFS -- BUT THANK YOU.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. HERTZ: I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY THANKING

THE COURT FOR THE TIME AND EFFORT PUT INTO THIS CASE,

NOT ONLY OVER THESE LAST FIVE DAYS OF TRIAL, BUT OVER

THE LAST, REALLY, YEAR AND A HALF BETWEEN SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND STATUS CONFERENCES, AND I REALLY

APPRECIATE THE COURT ENGAGING IN THESE ISSUES THAT I

HOPE THE COURT FOUND INTERESTING BECAUSE --
THE COURT: VERY INTERESTING, YES. IT'S
POLITICS AND THIS IS THE END OF A CAMPAIGN, I GUESS.

THIS IS THE TAIL END OF A CAMPAIGN C AND WHATEVER
HAPPENED AT REDONDO BEACH. OKAY.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT, I'M SURE THE FIRST OF MANY,

SO -- BUT WE, OBVIOUSLY, PRACTICING POLITICAL AND

ELECTION LAW FEEL VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND
COMPLIANCE ISSUES.

SO AS THE COURT SAID, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
3 THESE ISSUES AT THE OUTSET. WE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES. WE'LL FIRST TALK ABOUT WAS
R.O.W. P.A.C. PRIMARILY FORMED TO SUPPORT MEASURE C?

AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THE CONTROLLING CANDIDATE
ISSUE, WAS R.O.W. P.A.C. CONTROLLED BY BILL BRAND AND/OR NILS NEHRENHEIM? AND THEN IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS TO
THOSE QUESTIONS ARE "YES," IS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
APPROPRIATE?

WE ALSO MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET WHAT IS NOT AT
ISSUE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SET ASIDE THE ELECTION.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SEEK CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER ANOTHER
PROVISION OF THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SILENCE THE DEFENDANTS. IN FACT, THE TESTIMONY WAS,
AND WE AGREE, THAT THE ACTIVITIES THEMSELVES WERE LEGAL.

IT WAS THE WAY THE COMMITTEES WERE NAMED AND THE WAY THE

ACTIVITIES WERE DESCRIBED THAT REALLY WAS WHERE THE

DECEPTION WAS, IN OUR VIEW, AND WHERE THE VIOLATIONS
WERE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BROAD THEMES THAT WE THINK

HAVE EVOLVED IN LOOKING AT THE DEFENDANTS' CASE, AND I

THINK IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE IT IS INSTRUCTIVE ON THE

MERITS, AND IT SEEMS THAT THEIR MOTTO SEEMS TO BE DENY, DENY, DENY. IF WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE MATTERS THAT THEY HAVE DENIED, IT BECOMES QUITE TELLING. THERE'S A SAYING THAT "IF YOU LIE ABOUT THE LITTLE THINGS, YOU'LL
PROBABLY LIE ABOUT THE BIG THINGS," AND WE BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN LIES AND DECEPTION ON THE DEFENDANTS' PART.

JUST AS THE DEFENDANTS PULLED THE WOOL OVER THE VOTERS' 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
4 EYES REGARDING MEASURE C, WE BELIEVE THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED

TO PULL THE WOOL OVER THIS COURT'S EYES AND CONFUSED
ISSUES AND CONFLATE ISSUES.

AS AN EXAMPLE, DEFENDANTS DENY THAT PLAINTIFFS

ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY ARE RESIDENTS OF

REDONDO BEACH, BUT THE UNEQUIVOCAL SWORN TESTIMONY
PROVIDED OTHERWISE. THE DEFENDANTS DENIED THAT THE

CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE WERE
RELIABLE, BUT THEIR OWN EXPERT WITNESS RELIED ON THEM.

DEFENDANTS DENIED THAT R.O.W. P.A.C.'S INITIAL FORM
FORM 410, WHICH WAS SUPERSEDED, SHOULD COUNT FOR
ANYTHING; BUT I THINK WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT IT DOES

COUNT FOR SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT OFFICIALLY FILED OR ACCEPTED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

AND GETTING TO THE MATTER AT HAND, DEFENDANTS
HAVE DENIED THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS PRIMARILY FORMED TO

SUPPORT THE QUALIFICATION PASSAGE OF THE KING HARBOR

CARE ACT, AND WE BELIEVE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
PROVES OTHERWISE.

THE COURT: IS IT GENERAL -- GENERAL OR
PRIMARY?
MR. HERTZ: EXACTLY.

THE COURT: THAT'S THE ISSUE.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT, THAT'S THE ISSUE, AND WE

WILL GO OVER THE FOUR TESTS FOR SEPARATE INDEPENDENT
WAYS THAT IT CAN BE DEEMED PRIMARILY FORMED; AND WE

THINK THAT UNDER EACH OF THOSE TESTS, IT, IN FACT, IS

AND WAS PRIMARILY FORMED FROM ITS INCEPTION THROUGH THE 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
5 TIME OF THE ELECTION.

DEFENDANTS HAVE DENIED THAT IT'S NECESSARY OR

APPROPRIATE TO FILE AMENDED CAMPAIGN REPORTS, CLAIMING

THAT THE ELECTION HAS OCCURRED AND SORT OF IT'S WATER
UNDER THE BRIDGE; BUT WE HEARD FROM THE CITY CLERK, FROM

OUR EXPERT, ANN RAVEL, AND FROM THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF

APPEAL IN THE THIRTEEN COMMITTEE VERSUS WEINREB CASE

THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE IMPORTANT TO AMEND EVEN AFTER AN ELECTION COMES AND GOES.

WE HEARD FROM THE CITY CLERK THAT THESE
CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS STAY ON THE WEBSITE; AND WITH

ANOTHER ELECTION SEASON COMING UP IN, I BELIEVE,
MARCH OF 2019 IN REDONDO BEACH, IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT

PEOPLE WILL WANT TO RESEARCH WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME
AROUND, WHAT KIND OF COMMITTEE WAS R.O.W. P.A.C., WHO

CONTROLLED WHICH COMMITTEE, IN ADDITION TO OTHER ASPECTS

OF CAMPAIGN REPORTS THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING ISSUE WITH,

THE ACTUAL DOLLARS IN AND THE DOLLARS OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE. SO WE THINK THIS IS -- THIS IS NOT A TEMPEST

IN A TEAPOT, AS MAYBE HAD BEEN SUGGESTED AT ONE POINT,

AND WE HOPE THE COURT SEES THAT THIS IS A REAL -- A REAL

CASE, I THINK AS THE COURT SAID, REAL ISSUES, REAL
SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS TO BE DEALT WITH.

AND, IN FACT, THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT
PROVIDES FOR EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF RELIEF TO BE SOUGHT.

THIS ISN'T THE ONLY RELIEF. THE FAIR POLITICAL

PRACTICES COMMISSION, AS WE HAVE HEARD, IS ABLE TO

PURSUE MATTERS, AND YET PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS ARE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
6 ALSO ABLE TO PURSUE MATTERS.

AND I THINK WE MENTIONED WE -- WE BRING

SEVERAL OF THESE KINDS OF CASES EVERY ELECTION CYCLE,
AND MOST OFTEN THEY'RE SETTLED RATHER QUICKLY. THERE'S

USUALLY A WAY TO COMMUNICATE AMONG COUNSEL IF THEY AGREE THAT MAYBE SOMETHING WASN'T FILED RIGHT.

THE COURT: WE'RE PAST SETTLEMENT.

MR. HERTZ: WE'RE PAST THAT, RIGHT.

THE COURT: WE'RE AT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH,
COUNSEL.

MR. HERTZ: THERE'S ALSO A PHRASE "ALL
POLITICS IS LOCAL," AND WE HAVE SEEN IN REDONDO BEACH
THAT TIP O'NEILL PHRASE IS, MAYBE, "AT ITS ZENITH,"

BECAUSE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT
THE ISSUES. WE ARE NOT HERE TO LITIGATE THE ISSUES, THE PUBLIC POLICY, THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. WE ARE HERE TO LOOK AT WAS THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT VIOLATED? IF
SO, HOW? AND IF YES, WHAT IS THE PROPER REMEDY?

AS GUILTY PARTIES OFTEN DO, THEY LASH OUT AT
THOSE WHOM THEY CONSIDER TO BE THEIR POLITICAL ENEMIES;

AND OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, WE HAVE SEEN

ATTACKING OF OUR PLAINTIFFS IN THE MEDIA AND AT THEIR

DEPOSITIONS, ATTACKS AGAINST ME PERSONALLY, BUT THOSE

ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE ATTACKS ON THE VOTERS OF
REDONDO BEACH. AND IN THIS REGARD, DEFENDANTS ENGAGED
IN A SNEAK ATTACK. WE VIEW THE MEASURE C CAMPAIGN AS A
TROJAN HORSE. ON THE OUTSIDE, IT APPEARED TO BE
INNOCUOUS JUST ENOUGH, THE NAME "RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
7 P.A.C." SEEMING TO BE RATHER GENERAL, RATHER -- KIND OF A SAFE TERM; BUT WHAT WAS HIDDEN ON THE INSIDE OF THE

TROJAN HORSE WERE THE DETAILS, THE DETAILS THAT MEASURE THAT THE RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C. WAS PRIMARILY

FORMED TO SUPPORT MEASURE C, AND THE LAW REQUIRED IT TO

SAY YES ON MEASURE C AND TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY AND TO HAVE THAT IN THEIR NAME AND ON THEIR DISCLAIMERS.

ALSO, IN THE CONTROL COMMITTEE ISSUE, THE

NAMES BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM, WE BELIEVE, WERE LEGALLY

REQUIRED TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE, AND THAT
COULD HAVE AND VERY WELL WOULD HAVE HAD A LARGE IMPACT.

HAD R.O.W. P.A.C. IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS THE ENTITY --
THE COURT: WAS THE PUBLIC DECEIVED? WAS THE
PUBLIC DECEIVED BY ALL THAT?
MR. HERTZ: WE -- WE BELIEVE IT WAS. NOW, AS
FAR AS PROOF, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION HAS COME AND GONE.

THE COURT: THE ELECTION IS OVER.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT, BUT WE THINK THE PUBLIC WAS

DECEIVED IF THE LAW REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE BEEN

NAMED IN A CERTAIN WAY AND IN A MATERIALLY DIFFERENT WAY

TO HAVE BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM'S NAME IN THE VERY NAME OF

THE COMMITTEE, NOT ONLY ON THESE CAMPAIGN REPORTS, BUT
ON EVERY COMMUNICATION. WE HAVE SEEN THE YARD SIGNS AND

THE MAILERS AND THE DOOR HANGERS, MAYBE SOME PEOPLE LIKE

MEASURE C --
THE COURT: THAT'S A CONTROL ISSUE. THAT'S A
CONTROL ISSUE.

MR. HERTZ: THAT'S A CONTROL ISSUE, SO WE CAN
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
8 SAVE THAT.

THE COURT: LET'S SAVE THAT FOR CONTROL.

MR. HERTZ: ALL RIGHT. SO HAD THEY IDENTIFIED

THEMSELVES AS THE MEASURE C COMMITTEE, ONE HAS TO WONDER

WOULD THE COMMITTEE HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME LEVEL OF
FINANCIAL SUPPORT? WOULD IT HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME
LEVEL OF -- AS VOTER SUPPORT? WE WON'T KNOW, AND THERE

ARE VARIOUS THINGS THAT THIS LAWSUIT CAN'T DO AND

DOESN'T TRY TO DO, SUCH AS TURNING BACK THE CLOCK OR

CORRECTING THE DECEP- -- THE DECEPTIVE MAILERS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE; BUT
THESE COMMITTEE ARE STILL VITAL ACTIVE COMMITTEES. THEY

CONTINUE TO FILE CAMPAIGN REPORTS, RAISE AND SPEND
MONEY. THE NEXT REPORT WOULD BE DUE JANUARY 31ST FOR
THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31ST; AND WE BELIEVE THAT

UNLESS THERE ARE AMENDMENTS BOTH RETROSPECTIVE AND THEN

PROSPECTIVE ACCURATE FILING, THIS DECEPTION WILL
CONTINUE.

THE COURT: SO YOU WANT AN AMEND- --

BASICALLY, YOU WANT -- THIS SECTION, YOU WANT TO AMEND
THEIR FILING?
MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. AND, LARGELY, IT WOULD BE
THE FORM FORM 460'S THAT WE DISCUSSED, THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE 460'S, WHICH ARE THE ONGOING RECIPIENT

COMMITTEE CAMPAIGN STATEMENT FORMS, AND THE NAME WOULD

HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S CONTROLLED

BY BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM WOULD HAVE TO BE INDICATED, AND THEN THAT'S THE CONTROL ISSUE.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
9 BUT ON THE PRIMARILY FORMED ISSUE, IT NO

LONGER WOULD NEED TO SAY YES ON C BECAUSE WE'RE DONE

WITH MEASURE C, BUT THE REPORTS THAT WERE EARLIER FILED LEADING UP TO THE MARCH 2017 ELECTION, WE BELIEVE THE
LAW SUPPORTS AND REQUIRES THAT THOSE BE AMENDED.

AND THEN THE EARLY FORM 410 AND ANY AMENDMENTS

UP UNTIL THE ELECTION, WHILE NOT TECHNICALLY AMENDED, I

THINK WE HEARD FROM BOTH MISS MALTBIE AND MISS RAVEL

THAT THEY CAN BE NOTE -- A PUBLIC NOTE CAN BE ADDED SO
THAT IF SOMEONE PULLS THAT 410 OFF OF THE CITY CLERK
WEBSITE, THEY CAN SEE, OKAY. I SEE. NOW IT'S BEEN

DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE PRIMARILY FORMED FOR

MEASURE C, AND THAT HISTORICAL ACCURACY HAS A REAL WORLD MEANING; BECAUSE AS WE HEARD FROM THE CITY CLERK, THOSE CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS STAY ON THE WEBSITE. THEY'RE EASILY ACCESSIBLE VIA THE PORTAL; AND MEDIA, POLITICAL

RESEARCHERS, CANDIDATES AND OTHERS LOOK AT THAT AND RELY ON THAT.

THE COURT: ISN'T IT VERY CLOSE BETWEEN
GENERAL AND PRIMARY? I MEAN, YOU COULD SLIDE ONE INTO
THE OTHER FAIRLY QUICKLY, COULD YOU NOT?
MR. HERTZ: CERTAINLY, IN TERMS OF THEIR

CHANGING THEIR MISSION AND REBRANDING THEMSELVES, THAT
CAN BE AN EASY PROCESS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER
MEASURE C ELECTION OCCURRED ON MARCH 7, 2017,

PRESUMABLY, MAYBE UNLESS THERE WAS A RECOUNT OR

LITIGATION ABOUT THE ELECTION THAT -- ON THE ELECTION

RESULTS ITSELF, PRESUMABLY, YOU KNOW, ON MARCH -- MAYBE 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
10 IT TAKES A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO WIND THINGS UP, AND THEN THEY COULD HAVE SAID, "OKAY. NOW WE'RE FOCUSING ON TRUE GENERAL ISSUES. WE'RE GOING TO FILE A NEW 410, CHECK
THE GENERAL PURPOSE BOX, AND GO FORWARD." AND THEN

MAYBE THERE'S A BALLOT MEASURE COMING UP IN MARCH OF
2019, AND THEY DECIDED, "WELL, NOW WE WANT TO CONVERT TO

PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MEET
SOME OF THESE FOUR TESTS, SO LET'S CHANGE THAT."

SO YES, IN TERMS OF -- OF MORPHING OR AMENDING

YOURSELF FROM ONE COMMITTEE TO ANOTHER, THAT IS EASILY
DOABLE. WHAT IS DIFFICULT OR DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS IS,

FROM THE GET-GO, WE BELIEVE THERE WAS A FRAUD BEING
COMMITTED. SO WE SAW EVIDENCE OF THE VERY INITIAL FORM
410 SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY WAYNE CRAIG AND

MARTIN HOLMES, WHERE THEY FILLED OUT THE PRIMARILY

FORMED BOX AND THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT, SO SOMEWHERE IN SOMEONE'S MIND, THEY WERE PRIMARILY FORMED.

THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S FRAUD?
MR. HERTZ: I -- I BELIEVE IT WAS FRAUD, AND

THEY -- AND THEN THEY CONTINUED AND COMPOUNDED THE
FRAUD.

THE COURT: MISREPRESENTATION?
MR. HERTZ: I CAN USE --
THE COURT: MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION?
MR. HERTZ: I CAN USE THAT TERM. AND, ALSO, I

MEAN, IT'S NOT FRAUD IN THE SENSE OF TRYING TO GET MONEY

OUT OF SOMEONE, ALTHOUGH THE COMMITTEE DOES RAISE MONEY,

NOT -- NOT FOR PROFIT LIKE A PRODUCT BEING SOLD UNDER
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
11 FALLS PRETENSES; BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN A COMMITTEE IS

MISREPRESENTING ITSELF, PUTTING OUT MAILERS AND FLIERS

AND FACEBOOK PAGE AND WEBSITES AND THAT NAME IS --
THE COURT: CAN A COMMITTEE DO THAT? CAN'T --

CAN'T ELECTION PEOPLE DO THAT --
MR. HERTZ: NOT THE --
THE COURT: -- COUNSEL?
MR. HERTZ: ALL OF THOSE ACTIONS ARE

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, AND WE ARE NOT SEEKING TO
MINIMIZE OR CHILL THAT; BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLAY IN

THE GAME OF CALIFORNIA REDONDO BEACH POLITICS, IT IS A

HEAVILY REGULATED FIELD, SO YOU HAVE TO FILE CAMPAIGN

REPORTS, YOU HAVE TO FORM A COMMITTEE IF YOU RAISE
$2,000 OR MORE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

THE COURT: DID THEY ACT IN GOOD FAITH?
MR. HERTZ: I BELIEVE DEFINITELY NOT. IT

SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THAT AS SOME SORT OF AN

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BUT -- BUT THE GOOD FAITH, I THINK, WAS NOT THERE. NOW, THERE WERE REQUESTS MADE TO THE
FPPC. PERHAPS THE COURT MIGHT THINK OF SOME LEVEL OF
GOOD FAITH. THEY DIDN'T COMPLETELY IGNORE THE LAW, BUT
THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT ACT WITHIN THE STANDARD OF CARE.

THEY ASKED A SORT OF LOADED, NARROW, IMPROPER QUESTION

TO THE FPPC, GOT AN ANSWER THAT MAYBE THEY WANTED, AND
THEN CLAIMED TO HAVE RELIED ON THAT.

THE COURT: I FEEL THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.

MR. HERTZ: WELL --
THE COURT: I FEEL THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH --
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
12 MR. HERTZ: AND THAT'S --
THE COURT: -- AND THAT WILL BE MY -- A
FINDING I WILL MAKE.

MR. HERTZ: THAT'S -- THAT'S AN INTERESTING
RULING, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S DISPOSITIVE.

SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES, BOTH

EXPERTS, THAT THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT IS A STRICT
LIABILITY STATUTE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE INTENT OR
MENS REA.

THE COURT: WHERE DOES THAT STATE?
MR. HERTZ: THE -- JUST IN THE STATUTES
THEMSELVES.

THE COURT: WE'RE IN A COURT OF LAW. THAT'S
THE STATUTE. WE'RE IN A COURT OF LAW AND I HAVE TO LOOK

OVER --
MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.

THE COURT: -- AND DECIDE WHAT IS CORRECT.

MR. HERTZ: TRUE. AND, CERTAINLY, IN AN

EQUITABLE PROCEEDING LIKE AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PROCEEDING, THE COURT NEEDS TO WEIGH ALL OF THE FACTS
AND THE LAW; BUT I THINK THE GOOD FAITH WOULD COME IN IN THE FPPC ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, AS WE HEARD. AT THAT

POINT, IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW AND THEN THE FPPC SAYS
"WE'RE PURSUING YOU ADMINISTRATIVELY," AND YOU SAY,
"WELL, WE'LL FILE SOME AMENDMENTS, BUT WE REALLY DON'T

THINK WE SHOULD PAY A FINE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE WE WERE
ACTING IN GOOD FAITH," THAT'S A MITIGATING FACTOR, AND
THE EXPERT WITNESSES TALKED ABOUT THAT.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
13 THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A COURT OF LAW, THAT
THERE ARE CLEAR STATUTES THAT SAY "IF YOU'RE A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE, YOU MUST FILL OUT THE FORM THIS WAY.

YOU MUST NAME YOUR COMMITTEE THIS WAY." I DON'T

THINK -- AND I'M NOT AGREEING, OF COURSE, THAT THERE'S
GOOD FAITH; BUT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE'S GOOD

FAITH, I DON'T THINK THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO RESOLVING THE ISSUE. WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED. SO IF THEY HAD A SUBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH INTENT

AND THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING, I

STILL DON'T THINK THEY CAN, LET'S CALL IT, GET AWAY WITH IT; BECAUSE IF THE LAW SAYS YOU'RE PRIMARILY FORMED, YOU

HAVE THESE VERY STRICT, SPECIFIC THINGS THAT, FROM A

PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE --
THE COURT: WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO GET AWAY
WITH?
MR. HERTZ: THEY'RE HIDING --
THE COURT: WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
MR. HERTZ: THEY WERE HIDING -- WITH REGARD TO

THE PRIMARILY FORMED ISSUE, THAT THEY WERE PRIMARILY
FORMED TO SUPPORT MEASURE C. INSTEAD, THEY MASQUERADED

AS A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE, KIND OF CLOAKING
THEMSELVES IN THIS SORT OF GENERIC, "WE CARE ABOUT THE
WATERFRONT. WE'RE GENERALLY GOING TO WORK ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES," AND THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM
"OUR PURPOSE, OUR RATIONALE, THE WAY WE'RE RAISING AND
SPENDING OUR MONEY IS ALL ABOUT MEASURE C."
SO THE RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C. WAS THIS
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
14 KIND OF INNOCUOUS NAME. THEY USED THAT NAME, WE
BELIEVE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. WE BELIEVE NOT IN
GOOD FAITH; BUT EVEN IF IT WERE IN GOOD FAITH, THE
DAMAGE IS DONE IN THE SENSE THAT THE 410'S AND THE 460'S WERE FILED. THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF

CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS WENT OUT TO FOLKS WITHOUT THE
DESIGNATION "YES ON MEASURE C" APPEARING ON EACH

DISCLAIMER AND IN EACH MAILER AND ON THE NAME OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND WE FEEL THAT IS MATERIAL.

THE LEGISLATURE FEELS IT'S MATERIAL. THE

FPPC, THROUGH THE REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, HAS NOT ONE,
BUT HAS ALL FOUR TESTS THAT WE DETERMINED APPLY. IF YOU SPEND 70 PERCENT OF YOUR POLITICAL SPENDING ON ONE

PARTICULAR CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, AS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED
HAPPENED HERE, YOU ARE, BY DEFINITION, PRIMARILY FORMED; AND I DON'T THINK GOOD FAITH WOULD COME INTO PLAY THERE.

I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO
COMPLETELY VIOLATE THE LAW WITH NO CONSEQUENCES.

THE COURT: WELL, THERE'S NO HIDDEN -- NO BIG
HIDDEN MONEY IN THIS SITUATION, IS THERE?
MR. HERTZ: THIS IS --
THE COURT: I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY -- WE

DON'T HAVE THE MAFIA OR SOME GROUP UNDERWRITING --
MR. HERTZ: WE DON'T --
THE COURT: -- THE P.A.C.

MR. HERTZ: -- HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT ON -- ON
ANY SIDE; BUT, AGAIN, THAT'S -- THAT'S THE STUFF THAT

GRABS HEADLINES, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S MONEY LAUNDERING
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
15 AND IF AN EMPLOYER IS REIMBURSING HIS EMPLOYEES, THAT'S

STUFF THAT --
THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT YOUR EXPERT WENT INTO,
DARK MONEY, AND HER EXPERTISE WAS IN DARK MONEY.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. AND THE POINT OF THAT IS

THAT -- TO -- IN ESTABLISHING HER AS AN EXPERT AND
HAVING BEEN THE HEAD OF THE FPPC; AND THE FPPC, SHE
APPEARS IN A FILM CALLED "DARK MONEY."

NOW, I THINK THIS IS, IN A SENSE, DARK MONEY,

BECAUSE THE MONIES FLOWING INTO AN ENTITY THAT, IN OUR

VIEW, WAS A SHAM ENTITY, THE WAY IT WAS -- WHAT IT WAS

BEING CALLED WAS, YOU KNOW, AB INITIO, PROBLEMATICAL AND MATERIALLY MISLEADING. SO IT'S NOT DARK MONEY IN THE

WORST SENSE OF THE WORD FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR FROM

SOMEONE OTHER THAN WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE FROM, BUT THAT JUST MEANS THEY DIDN'T DO CERTAIN TYPES OF VIOLATIONS.

THEY DID, HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW -- AND WE THINK WE HAVE

PROVED IT QUITE WELL -- VIOLATED THE LAW IN OTHER
RESPECTS.

NOW, MAYBE THE WAY THE INJUNCTION IS WORDED
COULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. MAYBE IF THERE'S GOING TO

BE A FINDING OF A VIOLATION, BUT ALSO A FINDING OF GOOD

FAITH, THAT THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN A STATEMENT OF

DECISION OR --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO FIND GOOD FAITH. I

DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT WE WILL GET INTO -- OKAY.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY. AND I JUST WANT TO BE -- BE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
16 CLEAR THAT OUR ARGUMENT IS GOOD -- GOOD FAITH IS A

PERFECTLY -- WE DON'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT, OBVIOUSLY, A
PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE FINDING FOR THE COURT TO MAKE; BUT

I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS THAT THEY GET A DEFENSE VERDICT AND NO HARM, NO FOUL. I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO WRESTLE
WITH THOSE FOUR PRONGS OF PRIMARILY FORMED.

THE COURT: OKAY. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY. WOULD THE COURT LIKE ME TO
MOVE TO THE CANDIDATE CONTROL ISSUE?
THE COURT: NO. WE'LL GO -- LET'S DO ONE
THING.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY.

THE COURT: KEEP IT SEPARATE.

OKAY. GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MR. HERTZ.

MR. HERTZ: THANK YOU.

MS. ZIMMER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

WITH THE ISSUE OF PRIMARILY FORMED VERSUS
GENERAL P.A.C. --
THE COURT: THAT'S --
MS. ZIMMER: -- GENERAL PURPOSE P.A.C.,
R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS ALWAYS A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE.

THEY FILED THE 410. THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY

THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS THE ONE THAT SAYS THEY ARE A
GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE. THAT'S IT. THEY HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE. DID THEY EVER TURN
INTO A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE? THAT'S THE QUESTION
THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT. AS THE EXPERT SAID, THEY
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
17 LOOK AT THIS EVERY QUARTER, AND IT'S NOT THAT -- AT THAT

POINT THEY WOULD NEED TO MAKE A REPORT, BUT THEY NEED TO

LOOK AT WHAT MONEY THEY HAVE SPENT AND HOW MUCH OF THE

POLITICAL SPENDING -- WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT WAS SPENT ON THIS ONE ISSUE.

THE COURT: THE 70-PERCENT ISSUE, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT?
MS. ZIMMER: THE 70 PERCENT --
THE COURT: WE WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ON THAT.

MS. ZIMMER: THE 70/30 ISSUE, CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.

SO THE FIRST TIME THEY HAD TO DO THAT WAS --

BECAUSE THEY WERE -- THEIR STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION,
THEIR 410 WAS FILED IN AUGUST OF 2016, THE FIRST TIME
WAS PROBABLY SEPTEMBER. THAT'S THE FIRST QUARTER THAT
THEY HAD TO LOOK AT IT. AT THAT POINT, THEY HADN'T
SPENT $10,000, SO IT DIDN'T MATTER.

THEN THEY HAD TO NEXT LOOK AT IT IN
DECEMBER OF 2016. AT THAT TIME MR. CRAIG LOOKED AT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT, POLITICAL SPENDING. WE ALSO

AGAIN NEED TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH WAS SPENT, BECAUSE,

REMEMBER, THERE'S THAT LITTLE ESCAPE CLAUSE THAT IF YOU DON'T -- IF IT'S NOT 10,000, IF YOU DON'T HIT A
THRESHOLD OF $10,000, YOU DON'T -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THAT POINT. THERE'S A THRESHOLD THAT THEIR

EXPERT, MISS RAVEL, DIDN'T TELL YOU OUT -- ABOUT ON
DIRECT. THAT WAS ONLY BROUGHT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINE AND
THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE; BECAUSE EVEN THE NUMBERS THAT 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
18 COUNSEL CAME UP WITH FOR A TOTAL OF POLITICAL SPENDING WERE BELOW 10,000. REMEMBER, SHE SAID, "OH, YES,
9,000 --" I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT AMOUNT. "9,500" OR "9,700 IS BELOW 10,000." SO AS OF DECEMBER OF 2016,

THEY'RE STILL NOT A POLITICAL -- I'M SORRY -- A
PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE.

SO THEN WHEN DO WE LOOK AT -- AGAIN, THE NEXT
TIME THEY LOOK AT IT IS MARCH 2017. THAT'S THE FIRST
QUARTER OF 2017. THEY LOOK AT WHAT -- HOW MUCH HAVE WE

SPENT, POLITICAL SPENDING, AND HOW MUCH OF IT -- WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF IT IS BASES -- IS ONLY OWN MEASURE C? BUT THAT -- THAT TIME FRAME ENDS ON MARCH 31, 2017. OUR
ELECTION WAS MARCH 7TH, 2017. SO THREE WEEKS AFTER THE
ELECTION IS OVER, THEY NEED TO LOOK AT IT. DID WE SPEND MORE THAN $10,000 IN THIS QUARTER AND WAS MORE THAN --
WAS 70 PERCENT OR MORE ONLY ON MEASURE C? AND IF THAT

IS THE CASE, THEN MAYBE -- THEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE

WHETHER WE HAVE BECOME NOW A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE AND HAVE TO AMEND OUR FILINGS TO STATE THAT.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE ELECTION IS OVER.

AND THE CASES -- OR THE SUTTON LAW FIRM, THEY GAVE YOU

THIS WHOLE BIG COMPENDIUM OF ALL THE GREAT CASES AND THE LETTERS -- THE ADVICE LETTERS FROM THE FPPC. THE ONE

LETTER THAT THEY DIDN'T PUT IN THERE, YOUR HONOR, IS THE ONE THAT WAS SENT TO THEIR LAW FIRM IN 2010. IN 2010

THEY GOT THAT LETTER THAT SAID THAT A GENERAL PURPOSE
COMMITTEE, WHICH BECAUSE OF THE -- THE 70/30 RULE,

DURING AN ELECTION SEASON HAS BECOME NOW A PRIMARILY
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
19 FORMED COMMITTEE -- AND THEY FIGURED THAT OUT AFTER THE

ELECTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT

UNTIL THE END -- AFTER THE ELECTION, THREE WEEKS LATER, GUESS WHAT? AT THAT POINT YOU DON'T NEED TO AMEND ANY

MORE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE TO THE VOTERS. THE ELECTION IS OVER. THERE'S A -- THERE'S
A LETTER TO THEIR FIRM THAT SAYS THAT'S THE CASE. THEY
DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: THEY TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THAT.

MS. ZIMMER: THEY DID, AND THEY SAID, "WELL,
IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH --"
THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN, BUT THEY
TRIED.

MS. ZIMMER: "-- 410'S AND 460'S," OR
WHATEVER; BUT THEY'RE ASKING THEM TO AMEND THEIR 410'S
AND THEIR 460'S.

YOUR HONOR, IT'S -- EVEN IF THAT WERE THE

CASE, LET'S JUST SAY -- LET'S JUST SAY THEY'RE RIGHT

JUST FOR ARGUMENT, AND THAT NOW, IT'S AFTER THE
ELECTION. IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT LET'S LOOK AT IT.

THEN THE LAW SAYS -- THOSE REGULATIONS FROM -- SAY THAT, OKAY. WELL, THEN THE -- THE P.A.C. GETS TO LOOK AT
"WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS?"
THERE'S -- THAT'S IN THERE, AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. I
THINK IT'S (F)(1). AND WHEN THEY LOOK AT THAT AND THEY
SAY, "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS?"
THEY CAN LOOK AND SAY, WELL'S, MEASURE C IS OVER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANY MORE MEASURE C. IT'S ALREADY
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
20 OVER WITH. IT WAS --" "WE WON. THREE WEEKS AGO, WE
WON. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE FUTURE? ARE WE
GOING TO DO ANY MORE THINGS ON MEASURE C? ARE WE GOING
TO BE SUPPORTING MEASURE C? NO. IT'S OVER. WE'RE
GOING TO DO OTHER THINGS IN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS." AND

BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO AMEND AFTER THE
ELECTION. THAT'S ANOTHER REASON THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO AMEND.

BOTH OF THE EXPERTS TALKED ABOUT YOU CAN LOOK
AT THE LIFE SPAN OF THE P.A.C.; AND THIS P.A.C., IF IT

WERE PRIMARILY FORMED ONLY FOR MEASURE C, IT WOULDN'T BE IN EXISTENCE ANYMORE. THAT WAS OVER A YEAR AND A HALF
AGO. IN MARCH OF 2017, THE P.A.C. IS STILL THRIVING.

IT'S STILL DOING THINGS. IT'S SUPPORTING CANDIDATES.

IT'S SUPPORTING OTHER ISSUES WITH REGARD TO REVITALIZING THE WATERFRONT AND THE COASTAL AREA IN REDONDO BEACH.

IF IT WERE PRIMARILY FORMED SOLELY FOR MEASURE C, WE
WOULDN'T EVEN HEAR ABOUT IT ANYMORE. IT WOULD BE DEAD.

AND THE LAST THING, WHAT THEY'RE -- WHAT

THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, IS --

AND MISS RAVEL TALKED TO US ABOUT HOW THESE STATEMENTS
OF ORGANIZATION AND THE 460'S AND THE FORMS THAT THE
P.A.C.'S AND THE CANDIDATES NEED TO FILE WITH THE CITY

CLERK, THEY'RE ALL SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY

BOTH THE CANDIDATES OR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF A
P.A.C. AND THE TREASURERS. TWO PEOPLE ON EVERY SINGLE

ONE OF THOSE NEED TO SIGN IF THEY'RE -- YOU KNOW, THAT

IS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
21 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. THAT WAS TRUE WHEN THEY
FILED IT. IT REMAINS TRUE TODAY. WHAT THEY WANT THIS

COURT TO DO IS TO ORDER --
THE COURT: SO IS IT GENERAL PURPOSE? IS THAT

WHAT YOU --
MS. ZIMMER: ABSOLUTELY. AND IF THEY CHANGE

IT, IF THEY AMEND ANYTHING NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
LYING TO THE PUBLIC. THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE UNDER

PENALTY OF PERJURY AND LIE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT IS MEANT BY THESE RULES. SO IT'S A GENERAL PURPOSE, ALWAYS HAS
BEEN.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSELOR, JUST ON THIS ISSUE
RIGHT NOW.

MR. COLIN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

WE HEARD THE TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR, FROM --
FROM WAYNE CRAIG ABOUT HOW R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS FORMED AND WHAT THE INTENTION WAS OF R.O.W. P.A.C. TO OPERATE IN

THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ON LOCAL ISSUES, AND THESE -- THESE WERE NEWCOMERS. THESE -- THESE ARE NOT PAID

TREASURERS OR ASSISTANT TREASURERS OR CAMPAIGN
CONSULTANTS. THEY'RE JUST PLAIN GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZED

RESIDENTS OF REDONDO BEACH WHO DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO FORM THIS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. OKAY? NOBODY

WAS SCHOOLED IN POLITICS IN THIS GROUP, AND SO THEY DID

THE BEST THAT THEY COULD IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET THE

ORGANIZATION UP AND RUNNING, AND THEY READ THE FORM WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE. THEY FILLED OUT THE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
22 410 AND THEY GOT IT WRONG. THEY SUBMITTED IT AND IT GOT

KICKED BACK TO THEM WITH A NOTE, AND THAT'S THE
DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 100. THE NOTE CAME BACK FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE. IT SAID, "NO, WE'RE
REJECTING THIS. YOU NEED TO CORRECT IT," AND THEY
CORRECTED IT. THEY PUT DOWN THAT THEY WERE A GENERAL

PURPOSE COMMITTEE, AND THEY PUT DOWN WHAT IT WAS THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO DO IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. AND SINCE THEY FILED THAT 410 -- THE AMENDED 410 INDICATING

THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN JUST GENERAL

ISSUES, THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO OPERATE IN REDONDO BEACH

DOING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THEY -- THAT THEY INCLUDED IN
THAT DOCUMENT. THEY HAVEN'T BECOME A PRIMARILY FORMED
COMMITTEE.

THE COURT: WHY DO WE GET INTO THE 70 PERCENT
THEN?
MR. COLIN: THAT'S BECAUSE -- EXACTLY, YOUR
HONOR. EXACTLY. YOU DON'T GET TO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE
NEVER PRIMARILY FORMED TO SUPPORT MEASURE C. IF YOU
REMEMBER, MEASURE C WAS ON THE MARCH 7, 2017 BALLOT.

MEASURE C WASN'T EVEN DESIGNATED AS MEASURE C BY THE

COUNTY OR THE CITY COUNCIL OF REDONDO BEACH UNTIL
NOVEMBER OF 2016. THIS GROUP ORGANIZED IN THE SUMMER OF 2016. HOW COULD THEY EVEN ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WAS

GOING TO BE A MEASURE C, THAT THEIR INITIATIVE PETITION WAS EVEN GOING TO QUALIFY TO BE PUT ON THE BALLOT? I
MEAN, NOBODY IS A MIND READER IN THIS GROUP. THESE ARE

JUST PEOPLE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, KNOCKING DOOR TO DOOR
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
23 AND TRYING TO GET AN INITIATIVE PETITION SIGNED.

THE COURT: THESE FORMS ARE COMPLICATED.

THERE'S NO QUESTION --
MR. COLIN: THEY ARE. THEY ARE VERY
CONFUSING.

THE COURT: -- AND YOU NEED -- YOU NEED GOOD
ATTORNEYS WORKING ON THESE FORMS.

MR. COLIN: WELL, EXACTLY. AND IF YOU READ
THAT 410 FORM, IT SAYS "CHECK EVERYTHING THAT APPLIES." OKAY? AND THESE GUYS ARE CHECKING IT ALL AND THEY'RE

SUBMITTING IT, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE COMES BACK AND SAYS, "NO. YOU MESSED IT UP," BUT THEY FIXED IT. THEY
FIXED IT, AND -- AND THEY WROTE IN THERE WHAT THEY DO.

IT'S THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FILING THESE

DOCUMENTS WHERE YOU BEST LOOK TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT

THEY WANT TO DO AND -- AND YOU LOOK AT, REALLY, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS P.A.C.

THE COURT: GENERAL?
MR. COLIN: GENERAL PURPOSE. THEY'RE NOT

GOING TO -- THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE JUST DEALING WITH
THE INITIATIVE PETITION. THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE
APPEAL OF A BOAT RAMP ISSUE. THEY'RE DEALING WITH CEQA
ISSUES IN THE HARBOR. THEY'RE DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW -- THEY'RE DEALING WITH A DEVELOPMENT IN THE HARBOR.

THEY'RE DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE HARBOR.

I MEAN, THIS GROUP ISN'T --
THE COURT: IT'S CONFUSING.

MR. COLIN: IT'S CONFUSING.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
24 THE COURT: I MEAN, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS
THING, BUT IT'S CONFUSING.

MR. COLIN: IT'S CONFUSING, BUT THEY HAVE

CONTINUED TO OPERATE AND TO DO THINGS IN ALL OF THESE

DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO
OPERATE. AND WHEN THE ELECTION ENDED AND MEASURE C
PASSED ON MARCH THE 7, THEY DIDN'T CEASE TO EXIST. THIS

WASN'T JUST A SINGLE-CYCLE COMMITTEE THAT DIED WHEN
MEASURE C WAS PASSED. THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO RAISE
MONEY. THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO PAY FOR ATTORNEYS TO HELP THE CITY FIGHT OVERDEVELOPMENT IN THE HARBOR AREA. THEY

ARE DOING EVERYTHING THAT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE
DOES. SO FOR THE -- FOR THE PLAINTIFFS TO SAY, "THIS
WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE,"

IT ISN'T --
THE COURT: WELL, THEN WHY DID WE MORPH INTO
THE 70 PERCENT?
MR. COLIN: YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET THERE.

EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR. YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO GET INTO AN ANALYSIS OF 70 PERCENT BECAUSE, NUMBER ONE, THE GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE DIDN'T EVEN SPEND $10,000. THEY ADMIT THAT. ON THE STAND, ANN RAVEL SAID, "YEAH, THEY SPENT
LESS THAN $10,000 AND NO REVIEW IS EVEN REQUIRED"; BUT

EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN A REVIEW, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN

REQUIRED TO CHANGE THE NAME FROM A GENERAL PURPOSE TO A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE.

NOW, THEY WANT DOCUMENTS AMENDED.

THE COURT: WHAT DOES THE PLAINTIFF WANT YOU
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
25 TO DO IN THIS CASE? WHAT DO THEY WANT YOU TO DO?
MR. COLIN: THEY WANT MY CLIENTS TO GO BACK --

WELL, THEY WANT MY CLIENT --
THE COURT: GO BACK.

MR. COLIN: -- AND INDICATE ON HIS FORM THAT
HE CONTROLLED R.O.W. P.A.C., AND YOU --
THE COURT: WE'RE NOT GETTING --
MR. COLIN: RIGHT, RIGHT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY
WANT; BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS --
WAS A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE AND IT WAS CONTROLLED.

SO THEY WANT MY CLIENT TO INDICATE THAT HE HAD CONTROL,

BUT THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO THAT BECAUSE THEY -- THEY

HAVEN'T SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, ANY PROOF THAT THIS WAS
PRIMARILY FORMED. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GENERAL PURPOSE.

TO THIS DAY, IT IS A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE; AND TO

THIS DAY, IT CONTINUES TO -- TO FUNDRAISE AND SPEND

MONEY ON ISSUES THAT SERVE THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH, NOT JUST ON MEASURE C, WHICH WON AT THE BALLOT. THIS IS

JUST ABOUT PEOPLE WHO -- WHO LOST THE ELECTION, AND --

AND THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, A CONTINUING VENDETTA BY
THESE LOSERS AGAINST NOT JUST MY CLIENT, MR. BRAND,

AND -- AND MY CLIENT, LINDA MOFFAT, THE TREASURER -- THE VOLUNTEER TREASURER; BUT IT'S ALSO A VENDETTA THAT HAS

CONTINUED AGAINST --
THE COURT: WE WILL GET INTO CONTROL.

MR. COLIN: YES.

THE COURT: I WANT TO -- THAT'S A SEPARATE
ISSUE.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
26 MR. COLIN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: THERE'S A LOT OF INS AND OUTS ON
CONTROL. OKAY.

MR. COLIN: RIGHT. AND I WANTED TO MAKE ONE

OTHER POINT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY OF

ANN RAVEL --
THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COLIN: -- WHERE SHE WAS -- WHERE SHE WAS
ASKED, "WELL, HAD YOU SEEN THE NOTICE OF REJECTION --"
AND THAT'S IN OUR EXHIBIT 100. "HAD YOU SEEN THE NOTICE

OF REJECTION FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE
DIRECTED TO R.O.W. P.A.C. WHERE THEY SAID, 'HEY, YOU --' 'YOU HAVE TO FIX THIS. YOU HAVE TO CHECK OFF ONLY ONE
BOX, NOT TWO. EITHER YOUR GENERAL PURPOSE OR YOUR
PRIMARILY FORMED,'" AND THEY FIXED IT. SHE -- SHE SAID
SHE HADN'T SEEN IT BEFORE. SHE SAID THAT YESTERDAY;

BUT, IN FACT, IN HER DEPOSITION AND -- AND YESTERDAY SHE TESTIFIED. SHE AGREED THAT SHE HAD SPENT OVER 20 HOURS

PREPARING FOR HER DEPOSITION AND THAT SHE HAD REVIEWED
THE PLEADINGS AND THE MOTIONS IN THIS CASE. WELL --
THE COURT: SHE WASN'T THE BEST EXPERT.

MR. COLIN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: IN FACT, SHE -- SHE WAS A POOR

EXPERT --
MR. COLIN: BUT WHAT I --
THE COURT: -- IN FACT.

MR. COLIN: WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT ABOUT

THAT, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT SHE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
27 CLAIMS SHE REVIEWED, THAT NOTICE OF REJECTION WAS

ATTACHED TO THE DECLARATION OF WAYNE CRAIG WHEN THE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS FILED, SO SHE HAD THAT
DOCUMENT IN HER POSSESSION WHEN SHE REVIEWED.

THE COURT: WELL, SHE -- SHE WAS GOOD AS TO

THE DARK MONEY --
MR. COLIN: EXACTLY.

THE COURT: -- AND THE BIG THING, AND THIS IS
MORE OF A LOCAL ISSUE.

MR. COLIN: EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.

MR. COLIN: THERE IS DARK MONEY. THERE IS
DARK MONEY IN THIS CASE. WE ALL AGREE THAT THERE IS
DARK MONEY. WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION --
THE COURT: QUESTION FOR YOU.

MR. COLIN: -- ABOUT WHERE IT -- ABOUT WHERE
IT IS.

THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY.

COUNSELOR?
MR. NAYEBDADASH: I'LL BE BRIEF, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR -- YOUR HONOR, THE IRONY OF THE

PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THIS COURT IS NOT LOST ON US. THE PLAINTIFFS

HAVE CARRIED OUT THIS LITIGATION UNDER THE GUISE AS

BEING A METHOD TO CORRECT THE RECORD OR INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY. THAT'S ALL A FARCE. THIS IS A CLEAR CASE
OF A DEVELOPER WHO LOST A $4 MILLION PROJECT DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE C. AND SO WHAT DID THEY DO?
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
28 THEY FOUND OLD POLITICAL RIVALS WHO SUPPORTED

THEIR PROJECT TO ACT AS CUT-OUTS SO THAT THEY, THE

DEVELOPER, CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, LLC, THE PARENT COMPANY

OF REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC, WHO HAVE FOUND -- WHO

HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BANK ROLLING THIS LITIGATION CAN

SIDESTEP ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES TO QUELL PUBLIC ACTIONS
THAT MIGHT BE IN OPPOSITE TO THEIR PROJECT.

SO -- SO NO, THIS IS ISN'T A TROJAN HORSE;
IT'S REVENGE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT RIGHT HERE,
RIGHT NOW.

AS TO THE PRIMARILY FORMED VERSUS GENERAL
FORMED COMMITTEE, THIS COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR. THE

PLAINTIFFS WANTED TO PIGEONHOLE MY CLIENTS AS SPECIFIC
PURPOSES. WHY? BECAUSE IT FITS THEIR NARRATIVE. THEY

DO NOT WANT THE COURT TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS OF
ORGANIZATION, THE 410 THAT WAS ACTUALLY FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE. THEY WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE

STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION THAT WAS REJECTED, THE ONE

THAT WAS REJECTED AND CAME BACK TO MY CLIENTS WITH A
LETTER THAT SAID, "YOU NEED TO CHOOSE. ARE YOU A
SPECIFIC OR GENERAL?" AND THEY -- AND THEY LOOKED AT
THIS AND REALIZED, "I FILLED THIS DOCUMENT WRONG." I
FILLED OUT PLENTY OF FORMS WRONG. I FILL THEM OUT ALL
THE TIME, CHECKED BOTH BOXES. MAYBE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO
CHECK ONE. THAT'S THE CASE RIGHT HERE. THEY CHECKED
BOTH BOXES. THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AS WELL AS THEY CAN
AND THEY GOOFED. THEY GOOFED AND THEY GOT -- THEY GOT
WORD OF IT, AND WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY CORRECTED THE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
29 RECORD AS SOON AS THEY COULD. AS SOON AS THEY COULD, THEY CHECKED OFF "WE'RE A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE. WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THE HARBOR --" THE WATERFRONT IN
REDONDO BEACH."

NOW, HOW MANY OTHER ISSUES WERE THEY INVOLVED
WITH? WELL -- WELL, MY CLIENT, WAYNE CRAIG, HAS
TESTIFIED THAT -- 14 TOTAL ISSUES THAT THEY WERE
CONCERNED WITH. 14. NOT ONE, NOT ONE SPECIFIC, SO
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE. IT

SOUNDS LIKE A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE, AND THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

AND THAT DOESN'T WORK, SO -- SO THE PLAINTIFFS
WANT THE COURT HERE TO USE A 70 PERCENT RULE TO SEE IF
THEIR EXPENDITURES SOMEHOW WENT OVER THAT NUMBER.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE TO GET THERE?
MR. NAYEBDADASH: THEY DON'T -- WE DON'T HAVE
TO GET THERE. IT'S A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE FROM THE GET-GO; BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FALL BACK AND CLAIM

THAT WE WERE SPECIFIC SOMEHOW, THEN THEY WANT TO USE THE 70 PERCENT RULE. OKAY? THE 70-PERCENT RULE -- WELL, IT
HAS A LOT OF MATH INVOLVED; AND AS MS. RAVEL CAME UP,

SHE CAN'T -- CAME UP AND TESTIFIED SHE CAN'T EVEN DO THE MATH. SHE CAN'T DO THE MATH. WE HAVE ASKED HER TO DO
THE MATH. WE ASKED HER TO SHOW THE NUMBERS. SHE WAS
NOT ABLE TO DO SO.

AND THEN WE ASKED HER ABOUT, YOU KNOW,

FINANCIAL REPORTING PERIODS AND THE -- THE PERIOD TO
REVIEW FOR A GENERAL PURPOSE P.A.C. TO LOOK AT ITSELF
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
30 AND DO AN INTERNAL REVIEW AND SAY, "HEY, ARE WE SPENDING TOO MUCH AND SHOULD WE BE A SPECIFIC PURPOSE COMMITTEE?" SHE DIDN'T KNOW THOSE PERIODS. SHE WAS UNHELPFUL.

BUT, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT -- THAT
R.O.W. P.A.C. NEEDED TO FILE ONE SINGLE QUARTERLY REPORT IN 2016, AND IN THAT ONE SINGLE QUARTER, THEY DID NOT
MEET THE $10,000 -- WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE SAFE-HARBOR

THRESHOLD IN WHICH -- IN WHICH IF A COMMITTEE EXPENDS
LESS THAN $10,000, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY CONSIDER 70 PERCENT. THEY DON'T HAVE
TO MAKE THAT CONSIDERATION. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THE
REVIEW, AND SO THEY DIDN'T.

BUT THEN THEY SAY, "OKAY. WELL, THE FIRST
QUARTER OF 2017, YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE DONE THE REVIEW.

YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE DONE THE REVIEW." THE PROBLEM IS
THE ELECTION WAS OVER. THE ELECTION WAS OVER. THE
ELECTION WAS MARCH 7 AND THEY WERE -- THEY NEEDED TO DO IT BY THE END OF MARCH; BUT YET, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT OUR CLIENTS TO DO SO TO CORRECT SOME SORT OF RECORD. AND
THEY WANT TO SIT HERE AND SAY, "HEY, WE DON'T WANT TO
CHALLENGE THE OUTCOME OF THE --" "THE ELECTION. WE
DON'T WANT TO CHALLENGE THE MEASURE C." OF COURSE, THEY DON'T. IT PASSED BY 57 PERCENT. OF COURSE, THEY DON'T.

BUT THERE'S -- THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE LOOMING
IN THE BACKGROUND HERE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S POLITICS
INVOLVED HERE.

THE COURT: YES, I WOULD SAY SO.

MR. NAYEBDADASH: BUT THERE'S -- BUT THERE'S
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
31 SOMETHING ELSE INVOLVED HERE --
THE COURT: YES.

MR. NAYEBDADASH: -- AND THAT IS THIS $500,000

ATTORNEY FEES THAT MY CLIENTS MAY BE EXPOSED TO SHOULD

YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE GUILTY OF SOME SORT OF MISLEADING OR SOME SORT OF FAILURE TO -- TO CHANGE THEIR STATUS.

THE COURT: FRAUD?
MR. NAYEBDADASH: WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CALL
IT.

BUT IT'S NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR HONOR, IT'S ALSO

FINES AND FEES COMING DOWN FROM THE FPPC ON TOP OF THIS,

A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR FEE THAT CENTERCAL PROPERTIES

IS -- HAS BASICALLY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, YOU
KNOW, BANKROLLED THIS ENTIRE LITIGATION.

AND SO I JUST WANT THIS COURT TO UNDERSTAND

NOT ONLY IS THERE NOTHING TO A GENERAL PURPOSE VERSUS

SPECIFIC PURPOSE, THERE'S -- THERE'S NO THERE-THERE, BUT

THE RAMIFICATIONS OF JUST ASKING MY CLIENTS TO
INNOCENTLY AMEND THEIR 410 OR THEIR 460'S HAS INCREDIBLE

RAMIFICATIONS THAT WILL BE FELT IN REDONDO BEACH AND BY

RESIDENTS AND GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR YEARS TO
COME.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

OKAY. REBUTTAL?
MR. HERTZ: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: WHY ISN'T THIS A GENERAL PURPOSE
COMMITTEE?
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
32 MR. HERTZ: YOUR HONOR, THE CHRONOLOGY REALLY
TELLS THE STORY, AND WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT.

SO ON JUNE 26TH -- ON JUNE 28, 2016, THE TEXT

OF MEASURE C, WHICH YES, WAS NOT MEASURE C YET -- IT WAS

THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT WAS SUBMITTED -- A MERE THREE
DAYS LATER R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE FORMED AND CHECKED THE -- CHECKED THE PRIMARILY FORMED BOX. THE
DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE US THINK THAT WAS A COINCIDENCE;
AND OF COURSE, IT WASN'T A COINCIDENCE.

WHAT HAPPENED, THEN, WHEN IMMEDIATELY
MEASURE C STARTED RAISE -- I'M SORRY -- R.O.W. P.A.C.

STARTED RAISING AND SPENDING MONEY, THE MONEY DIDN'T GO

TO -- WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY WENT TO,
REALLY, ANYTHING OTHER THAN MEASURE C. I THINK IT WAS
99 PERCENT OF THE MONEY. SO WHAT DID THEY DO? THEY
PRINTED THE PETITIONS; THEY PAID SIGNATURE GATHERERS;
THEY TURNED IN THE PETITIONS; AND THEY IMMEDIATELY

LAUNCHED INTO A CAMPAIGN WHICH INCLUDED, AS WE SAW, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SIGNS AND FACEBOOK PAGES. SO IF THAT'S
NOT A CAMPAIGN, WHAT IS?
SO YOU -- IF YOU PUT ASIDE THE INITIAL 410 --
WE'RE NOT SAYING THE INITIAL 410 WAS LEGALLY

RECOGNIZABLE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BECAUSE,
ADMITTEDLY, THE SECRETARY OF STATE REJECTED IT; BUT THE

THOUGHT PROCESS IN SAYING PRIMARILY FORMED TO SUPPORT

THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT, SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY BY MR. CRAIG, HAS TO COUNT FOR SOMETHING, AND

THEN THE IMMEDIATE ACTIVITIES AND REALLY SOLE ACTIVITY, 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
33 POLITICALLY, THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. VENTURED INTO OVER THE NEXT MANY, MANY MONTHS LEADING UP TO MARCH OF 2017, THEY

WERE ALL ABOUT MEASURE C, AND THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT

ABOUT LET'S ALSO PUT A LITTLE INCH OR --
THE COURT: WELL, THE PUBLIC KNEW -- THE
PUBLIC KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON, DIDN'T THEY? I MEAN,

THERE WAS NO HIDDEN -- HIDING OF MONEY OR WHO IS DOING
WHAT? I MEAN, WE HAVE THE MAYOR AND WE HAVE -- ALL ON
ONE SIDE, AND WE HAVE -- OTHER SIDE OPPOSING C.

MR. HERTZ: I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PUBLIC KNEW.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS LITERATURE THAT SAID "YES" --
THE COURT: WAS THE PUBLIC DECEIVED?
MR. HERTZ: I THINK THEY WERE DECEIVED, AND

THE REASON IS THERE WAS, ALLEGEDLY, ACCORDING TO THE

DEFENDANTS, NO MEASURE C CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, SO NO -- NO ONE TO BE SORT OF COMPLAINING ABOUT. IF R.O.W. P.A.C.

WAS A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE THAT JUST SORT OF

HAPPENED TO BE DABBLING UNTIL MEASURE C AND THERE'S NO

MEASURE C COMMITTEE, I MEAN, IT'S JUST STRANGE CREDULITY AND IT'S NOT THE WAY THE LAW IS DESIGNED.

NOW, WE THINK THERE'S --
THE COURT: WAS R.O.W. P.A.C. PUSHING
MEASURE C?
MR. HERTZ: WE BELIEVE THEY WERE, ALTHOUGH

THEY WERE TRYING TO PRETEND THAT THEY WEREN'T THE -- THE SOLE PARTY PUSHING MEASURE C. AND WE THINK THERE WAS

MAYBE A PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY GOING ON THAT IS -- I MADE

REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE MAILERS THAT -- AT LEAST WE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
34 THOUGHT MAY HAVE HAD SOME RACIST OVERTONES, AND MAYBE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT YES ON C ON THEIR DISCLAIMERS.

THEY WANTED TO SAY, "OH, WE'RE JUST R.O.W. P.A.C. WE'RE NOT THE MEASURE C CAMPAIGN."
THE COURT: WEREN'T THEY RIDING ON -- THE

CAMPAIGN WAS RIDING ON MEASURE C FOR THE -- FOR THEIR
ELECTION PURPOSES, THE MAYOR?
MR. HERTZ: THE -- WHAT THEY WERE -- THEY WERE
CAMPAIGNING FOR MEASURE C.

THE COURT: CANDIDATES DO. WHAT JERRY BROWN
DID WHEN HE RAN. HE HAD SOME THING GOING --
MR. HERTZ: AND THAT'S --
THE COURT: -- PROPOSITIONS GOING, AND RAN ON

THE PROPOSITION AND WAS ELECTED THE FIRST TIME TO THE
SCHOOL BOARD, AS I RECALL.

MR. HERTZ: AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS AS

TO WHY IF WE GET INTO CANDIDATE CONTROL, THAT'S THE
PUBLIC POLICY BEHIND CANDIDATE CONTROL. SO IF THE

CANDIDATE -- IF BILL BRAND AND NILS NEHRENHEIM WERE

JOINT FUNDRAISING, JOINT SPENDING MONEY, DIRECTING AND

CONTROLLING --
THE COURT: WE WILL GET INTO CONTROL.

MR. HERTZ: WE WILL GET INTO THAT.

THE COURT: CONTROL.

MR. HERTZ: NOW, WHAT I WOULD WANT TO MENTION,
YOUR HONOR, IS I THINK THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE GOOD FAITH, AS MUCH AS WE ALL WANT PEOPLE TO ACT IN

GOOD FAITH, IS NOT A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE OR AN ACE IN
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
35 THE HOLE. THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY, IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW, SOMEONE CAN GET AN INJUNCTION; BUT IF YOU'RE IN
GOOD FAITH, THEN THEY CAN'T GET AN INJUNCTION. AND I
NOTE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS EQUITABLE; BUT EVEN IF --
THE COURT: YES, EQUITY IS --
MR. HERTZ: -- THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, YOU

KNOW, TRIED THEIR BEST -- AS WE HEARD, THEY DIDN'T HIRE A PROFESSIONAL TREASURER. THEY DIDN'T HIRE A LAWYER, SO I THINK THEY ACTED BELOW THE STANDARD OF CARE.

THE COURT: SO IT'S MORE OF A COMMUNITY
OPERATION IF YOU DON'T DO THAT.

MR. HERTZ: WELL, BUT --
THE COURT: THEY DIDN'T HIRE YOUR FIRM, THE

SUTTON FIRM TO --
MR. HERTZ: THEY COULD HAVE HIRED

AMBER MALTBIE AND I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE
RIGHT ADVICE.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS CAN YOU -- CAN YOU SORT OF
PLAY DUMB, LIKE, "AH, SHUCKS. WE'RE JUST TRYING OUR
BEST. WE GOT IT WRONG." RELY ON THAT FOR MANY, MANY
MONTHS -- THEY CERTAINLY KNEW ENOUGH TO FILE THE 24-HOUR REPORTS AND PUT SOME SORT OF DISCLAIMER ON THEIR MAIL.

WHETHER IT WAS NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL, THE -- THE

TRANSPARENCY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE THAT LEGALLY
IS REQUIRED TO BE THERE WAS NOT THERE.

AND I ALSO THINK THERE IS SOME TAIL WAGGING
THE DOG IN TWO OF THAT -- IN TWO INSTANCES. SO WHEN
THEY TALK ABOUT THE $10,000 SAFE HARBOR, THEY ARE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
36 ASSUMING THEIR OWN ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS GENERAL PURPOSE;

AND IF IT'S GENERAL PURPOSE, EVEN IF IT SPENDS
70 PERCENT OF ITS MONEY ON MEASURE C, BECAUSE THEY SPENT LESS THAN 10,000, IT'S DE MINIMIS. WE DON'T WANT TO
BURDEN THEM WITH CHANGING THEIR COMMITTEE STATUS. THAT

WHOLE SECTION OF THE REG DEALS WITH A -- YOU WOULD HAVE

TO FIND, I THINK, THAT YES, IT WAS GENERAL PURPOSE,

WHICH I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD, YOUR HONOR, AND THEN -- THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO FIND,
THAT IT WAS GENERAL PURPOSE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
FINDING THAT, GENERAL PURPOSE.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY. WELL --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT FINDING.

THERE WAS A GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE.

MR. HERTZ: AND I WOULD JUST --
THE COURT: AND THE PROBLEM OF -- OF -- IS

SOME QUESTION THE TECH -- WHETHER THEY BECAME A PRIMARY

PURPOSE IN THE THRESHOLD, AND I'M GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE THRESHOLD. I'M GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE
THRESHOLD.

MR. HERTZ: THE 10,000?
THE COURT: THE 10,000.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY. AND WE OBVIOUSLY,
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE; AND WE THINK THAT THE FACTS, AS

PRESENTED, THE EVIDENCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXPERT ON

THE PLAINTIFFS' SIDE, THAT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE

DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES, THE EXHIBITS --
THE COURT: WELL, THE EXPERT -- YOUR EXPERT
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
37 DIDN'T HAVE MUCH -- TOO MUCH.

MR. HERTZ: THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING --
THE COURT: I CAN'T LEAN ON YOUR EXPERT.

THEIR EXPERT CERTAINLY WAS CLOSER TO THE GROUND AS WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY. YOUR EXPERT WAS GOOD.

SHE PROBABLY -- NATIONALLY ABOUT DARK MONEY, BUT WE GOT TO GET TO THE LOCAL FACTORS.

MR. HERTZ: WE UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT, THE COURT'S POSITION.

BUT I THINK THE TAIL IS WAGGING THE DOG NOT
ONLY WITH THE ARGUMENT ABOUT, "WELL, LET'S START AND

ASSUME IT'S GENERAL PURPOSE, AND THEN WE CAN AVAIL
OURSELVES OF THE $10,000 THRESHOLD." I THINK THE TAIL
IS WAGGING THE DOG TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE SAYING, "WELL,

IF YOU RULE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO
PAY MONEY IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AWARD." I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE RELEVANT. WE'RE TALKING --
THE COURT: WELL, IT'S RELEVANT. IT CAN BE
RELEVANT AS TO WHAT MOTIVES ARE OR WHAT'S GOING ON.

MR. HERTZ: WOULDN'T THAT COME INTO PLAY IF WE

WIN, AND THEN IF THERE'S ATTORNEY FEE MOTION, AND THEN

MAYBE --
THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE
PICTURE. THIS IS POLITICS. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE
PICTURE.

MR. HERTZ: AND I WOULD -- I WOULD JUST -- IN

MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THE LIABILITY,
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
38 LET'S CALL IT, AND -- IN A VACUUM, DID THEY VIOLATE THIS LAW? IF SO, WHAT'S THE REMEDY?
THE COURT: I FIND GENERAL PURPOSE. I DON'T
FEEL THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW. IF THERE WAS ANY
VIOLATION, IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH; BUT I DON'T FEEL THAT
THERE WAS A VIOLATION.

MR. HERTZ: MAY I MENTION THE CONCERN ABOUT
PERJURY? I THINK THAT THAT'S -- THAT'S A RED HERRING.

THE COURT: PERJURY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT --
MR. HERTZ: THE CONCERN, I THINK, THAT WAS

MENTIONED IS IF THE DEFENDANTS TRULY BELIEVED THAT THEY

WERE GENERAL PURPOSE, AND THIS COURT WERE TO NOW ORDER

THEM TO REFILE OR AMEND OR PUT A NOTE THAT SAYS THEY

WERE PRIMARILY FORMED --
THE COURT: I'M NOT GOING TO ORDER THEM TO DO
ANYTHING.

MR. HERTZ: BUT, THEORETICALLY, THEY WERE
CONCERNED, "OH, THEN WE HAVE TO COMMIT PERJURY," AND OUR

ARGUMENT IS, WELL, THAT'S A RED HERRING, BECAUSE,

OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE WAS A -- IF THERE WAS A FINDING THAT

IT WAS PRIMARILY FORMED AND THEY'RE SIGNING THAT, I
DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THEY'RE COMMITTING PERJURY. I

THINK IF ANYTHING, IF THERE WAS NOT GOOD FAITH, THERE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERJURY ON THE FRONT END. BUT LET'S

ASSUME --
THE COURT: I DON'T SEE ANY PERJURY. I SEE
PEOPLE TRYING TO WRESTLE WITH THESE FORMS. THE FORMS

ARE COMPLICATED, AND WHAT IS GENERAL AND -- AND PRIMARY 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
39 IS A COMPLICATED FACTOR AND IT'S LIKE --
MR. HERTZ: BUT I REALLY THINK THEY GAMED THE
SYSTEM. I MEAN, THEY DIDN'T SEEK THE PROPER LEGAL
ADVICE. THEY DIDN'T SEEK A LAWYER. THEY DIDN'T

SEEK AND --
THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT CITIZENS DO,
COUNSELOR. CITIZENS ARE OUT THERE TRYING TO DO THEIR
BEST, AND THAT'S WHAT I FEEL THAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.

THEY TRIED TO DO THEIR BEST THING --
MR. HERTZ: AND -- AND --
THE COURT: -- SO I'M GOING TO FIND THAT --
THAT IT'S GENERAL PURPOSE.

MR. HERTZ: OKAY.

THE COURT: OKAY?
MR. HERTZ: FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE TO, OF
COURSE, DISAGREE.

THE COURT: OF COURSE, RIGHT.

MR. HERTZ: I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING ABOUT
CONTROL.

THE COURT: WE WILL GET INTO CONTROL. OKAY?
LET'S SWITCH OVER TO CONTROL. READY TO -- FOR CONTROL?
MR. HERTZ: YES, YOUR HONOR.

SO THE CONTROL COMMITTEE ISSUE, OF COURSE, IS
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW

SHOW THAT ONE CAN EITHER BE PRIMARILY FORMED OR GENERAL PURPOSE AND ALSO BE CONTROL. SO AS WE DISCUSSED,

THERE'S A STATUTE IN THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT THAT
REFERS TO CANDIDATE CONTROL. THE WORD "CONTROL" IS A
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
40 LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMER BECAUSE I THINK IT

OVERSTATES --
THE COURT: I HAVE THE DEFINITION RIGHT

HERE --
MR. HERTZ: YES.

THE COURT: -- AS TO "CONTROL," AND IT IS, AND
WE'LL LOOK AT IT. OF COURSE, IT'S THE INTERPRETATION.

IS IT -- "A CONTROL COMMITTEE

IS ONE THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY

OR STATE OR MEASURE THAT ACTS

JOINTLY WITH A CANDIDATE CONTROL

COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH A
MAKING OF EXPENDITURES. A

CANDIDATE CONTROLS THE COMMITTEE IF

HE CONTROLS A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE

ON THE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE."
"SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE," I GUESS, IS THE KEY
WORD. AND WAS THERE A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE?
MR. HERTZ: AND THAT IS THE CORRECT STATUTE.

I ASSUME YOUR HONOR WAS READING FROM GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 820- --
THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. HERTZ: -- -16; AND I JUST NOTE THAT
IT'S -- THERE'S AN "OR." SO IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT

INFLUENCE, THAT'S ONE WAY TO BECOME A CONTROLLING

CANDIDATE, IF YOU'RE -- IF YOU'RE ENGAGING IN ACTIONS

THAT GIVE YOU A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE OVER THE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
41 COMMITTEE; AND THE SECOND WAY IS IF THERE'S JOINT
ENGAGING IN EXPENDITURES.

AND SO WE THINK THEY HAVE QUALIFIED -- BOTH

BILL BRAND AND NILS NEHRENHEIM HAVE QUALIFIED AS

CONTROLLING CANDIDATES IN BOTH OF THOSE WAYS AS TO
R.O.W. P.A.C.

LET ME START WITH MR. NEHRENHEIM, AND AS THE

EVIDENCE SHOWED, HE WAS ONE OF THE THREE PROPONENTS OF
THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT, ALONG WITH WAYNE CRAIG.

WAYNE CRAIG, A FEW DAYS AFTER THE TEXT OF THE MEASURE
WAS SUBMITTED, FORMED R.O.W. P.A.C. NILS NEHRENHEIM

CLAIMS THAT HE PUT UP -- I THINK IT WAS A GUARDRAIL OR

AN ETHICS WALL, BUT WE SAW HIS FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THE PROCESS THROUGHOUT. SO WE SAW PICTURES OF HIM

CIRCULATING THE PETITION, GIVING TOURS OF THE

WATERFRONT, TURNING IN THE SIGNATURES, ADVERTISING FOR

MEASURE C, AND THERE'S A LIST OF OTHER MATERIALS THAT --

WE TALKED ABOUT THE ASH PIRAYOU FPPC LETTER THAT LISTS
THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES; AND WE THINK THAT

NILS NEHRENHEIM AND BILL BRAND, WHOM I'LL GET TO IN A
MOMENT, MET -- MET THOSE TESTS AND MET THOSE GOALS.

THEY WERE MUTUALLY, LET'S CALL IT, SCRATCHING EACH
OTHER'S BACK. "WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOAL. LET'S
CAMPAIGN TOGETHER. LET'S GIVE MONEY BACK AND FORTH."
THE COURT: ISN'T THAT WHAT CAMPAIGNS DO?
MR. HERTZ: THEY -- THEY DO, BUT THEY --
THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THEY --
MR. HERTZ: -- RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONTROL.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
42 SO IF FOR --
THE COURT: DON'T THEY WORK IT SO THAT THEY

CAN GET VOTES RIDING ON MEASURE C, AND THEY CAN GET

VOTES FOR -- FOR THEMSELVES FOR THEIR OFFICE OR THEIR

MAYOR --
MR. HERTZ: OFTEN --
THE COURT: -- OR WHATEVER IT IS?
MR. HERTZ: SURE, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

OFTEN, THERE'S A SLATE OF CANDIDATES. LET'S SAY THE
MAYOR AND THE THREE CITY COUNCILMEN SAID, "WE'RE ALL OF LIKE MIND. WE'RE AGAINST OVERDEVELOPMENT. VOTE FOR
US," AND THAT'S FINE. WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE

CONTROLLING CANDIDATE ISSUE IS, IF THESE -- IF YOU LOOK

AT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LEVEL OF
INTERRELATIONSHIPS, WAS THERE SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE?
WAS THERE JOINT EXPENDITURES? THEN YOU CAN REACH
CANDIDATE CONTROL.

NOW, THE REASON IT MATTERS IS WHEN YOUR HONOR

REFERENCED JERRY BROWN YEARS AGO USING A BALLOT MEASURE

AS KIND OF A CAMPAIGN TOOL --
THE COURT: THEY DO THAT ALL THE TIME, DON'T
THEY?
MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. BUT THEN THEY'RE HAVING TO

DISCLOSE THAT IT'S A CONTROLLED COMMITTEE, TO THE EXTENT THE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED.

SO TO THE EXTENT NILS NEHRENHEIM AND
BILL BRAND SAID, "HEY, THIS IS GREAT. WE WANT TO RUN
FOR OFFICE. MEASURE C, WE THINK, WILL BE POPULAR."
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
43 THE COURT: GRAB ON MEASURE C AND RUN.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.

THE COURT: WOULDN'T YOU DO THAT IF YOU WERE A
CANDIDATE?
MR. HERTZ: I -- I DON'T FAULT THEM. THAT WAS
OBVIOUSLY A SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY. THE POINT IS --
THE COURT: AND IT KNOCKED OUT A WHOLE GROUP
OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? YOU HAD A WHOLE
NEW MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL?
MR. HERTZ: A FEW --
THE COURT: BASICALLY.

MR. HERTZ: A FEW COUNCILMEMBERS, RIGHT.

THERE WAS AN INCUMBENT WHO NILS NEHRENHEIM DEFEATED, AND

AN INCUMBENT WHO BILL BRAND DEFEATED, AND MORE POWER TO THEM IF THE VOTES WENT THAT WAY; BUT THERE HAS TO BE
FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN THE PROCESS. SO IF THEY
CONTROLLED R.O.W. P.A.C., THEN R.O.W. P.A.C. NEEDED TO
SAY "CONTROLLED BY BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM" OR "A
COMMITTEE," YOU KNOW, "OF BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM," AND
THAT MAY WELL HAVE CHANGED THINGS. WHETHER OR NOT IT
CHANGED THINGS IS NOT THE ISSUE. IT'S DO -- HAVE WE MET THE CRITERIA FOR CONTROL?

WE THINK WHAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE DONE AND

WHAT MISS MALTBIE DID IS KIND OF CHERRY PICK DIFFERENT
ACTIVITIES. "OH, OKAY. THEY HAPPENED TO ATTEND ONE
EVENT TOGETHER. THAT DOESN'T MAKE CONTROL," OR THEY

HAPPEN --
THE COURT: DID THEY STRATE- -- STRATEGIZE?
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
44 MR. HERTZ: STRATEGIZE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE
THINK THERE WAS A BIT OF A SMOKING GUN. WHEN BILL BRAND WROTE TO THE FPPC AND SAID, "I'M RUNNING FOR MAYOR.

THERE'S ALSO MEASURE C. WE WANT TO STRATEGIZE. WE WANT
TO COORDINATE. WE WANT TO WALK PRECINCTS. WE WANT TO
HOLD FUNDRAISERS." THAT WAS, I THINK, AN ADMISSION THAT HE HAD -- INTENDED DO THAT. NOW, THE FPPC THEN SAID,
"YES, YOU CAN DO THAT. JUST REPORT IT." HE DIDN'T EVER
ASK THE QUESTION, "MIGHT I BE A CONTROLLING CANDIDATE?"

AND IF HE WAS, THEN THE NAME BRAND WOULD APPEAR IN THE
COMMITTEE NAME OF R.O.W. P.A.C. ALSO, BRAND WOULD HAVE

HAD TO AMEND HIS CAMPAIGN FORMS, BECAUSE YOU SAY -- YOU

NOT ONLY SAY WHAT COMMITTEE YOU CONTROL, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY BRAND CONTROLLED HIS OWN CANDIDATE COMMITTEE; AND NEHRENHEIM CONTROLLED HIS OWN CANDIDATE COMMITTEE.

BUT THE PUBLIC POLICY FOR TRANSPARENCY IS SO IMPORTANT

THAT THE LAW ALSO REQUIRES YOU TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT

OTHER COMMITTEES YOU CONTROL, AND THAT INFORMATION MAY

BE VERY USEFUL TO THE MEDIA, TO THE VOTERS, AND SO WE
THINK THEY DID RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONTROL. AND I CAN

GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AGAIN --
THE COURT: I KNOW THERE ARE --
MR. HERTZ: -- AND THEREFORE --
THE COURT: -- A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT -- YES.

MR. HERTZ: THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD BE -- BRAND

AND NEHRENHEIM AND THEIR COMMITTEES AND THEIR TREASURERS

SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO AMEND THEIR STATEMENTS TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THEY CONTROLLED R.O.W. P.A.C. AND NOT BE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
45 ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT HIDING-THE-BALL THEME, IN OUR
VIEW.

THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY. ON CONTROL, WHO IS
THE -- CONTROLLING THIS?
MS. ZIMMER: I'LL START, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO START WITH A QUOTE FROM
MS. RAVEL, WHICH SHE TOLD US YESTERDAY WAS, QUOTE, "NONE OF THIS IS ILLEGAL. IT'S ALL OKAY," END QUOTE. WE
TALKED ABOUT MISS RAVEL. THAT WAS THEIR EXPERT, AND SHE TALKED A LOT. THEY PAID HER A LOT TO TALK, BUT I THINK

WHAT I -- IF I CAN APPROACH THE BUTCHER PAPER, YOUR
HONOR.

THE COURT: SURE, SURE.

MS. ZIMMER: REALLY, WHAT MISS RAVEL -- AND I

CAN DESCRIBE IT IN A COUPLE OF WORDS, WHAT SHE WAS ALL
ABOUT HERE.

THE COURT: SHE WAS ABOUT DARK MONEY.

MS. ZIMMER: SHE WAS ABOUT "HIGH-PRICED GAS,"
YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: "HIGH-PRICED GAS," ALL RIGHT.

MS. ZIMMER: GUESSES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND

SPECULATION, THAT'S WHAT MISS RAVEL CAME IN HERE AND
SAID. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT, YOUR HONOR? BECAUSE
PLAINTIFFS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. IT CANNOT BE BASED ON GUESSES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND SPECULATION. I ASKED HER

SO MANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF HER SAYING --

CONCLUDING THAT BOTH BILL BRAND AND NIL --
NILS NEHRENHEIM CONTROLLED R.O.W. P.A.C.? AND SHE SAID, 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
46 "I DON'T KNOW." "I'M NOT CERTAIN." "I'M NOT SURE."
"I'VE NEVER BEEN TO REDONDO BEACH." "I DON'T KNOW WHEN
SOMETHING HAPPENED." SHE HAD NOTHING BUT SMOKE AND
MIRRORS. IT WAS ALL CONJECTURE. LIKE I SAID, SHE
TALKED A LOT. $650 AN HOUR, ONE HOUR. $650, CHA-CHING.

TWO HOURS, $1300; CHA-CHING. ALL DAY FRIDAY, TEN HOURS, SHE MADE $6,500 ON FRIDAY TO SIT HERE AND TALK AND TALK AND TALK AND TELL US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PUT INTO EVIDENCE,
THERE'S NO DATES ON THEM. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY
HAPPENED. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE DURING THE
ELECTION PERIOD. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE THE SUMMER
BEFORE. THE INFORMATION SHE PROVIDED, I ASKED HER,
"WHEN DID MR. NEHRENHEIM BECOME A CANDIDATE WHO
CONTROLLED A COMMITTEE?" BECAUSE I ASKED HER, "DON'T
YOU NEED TO BE A CANDIDATE TO CONTROL A COMMITTEE?" AND SHE SAID, "YEAH, YOU DO." BUT GUESS WHAT? SHE WAS

TALKING ABOUT THINGS HE DID AS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT AS A
PART OF ANY GROUP. AS AN INDIVIDUAL, HE SIGNED THE
INITIATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT. IT

DID NOT BECOME MEASURE C UNTIL DECEMBER, WHEN THE CITY
COUNCIL GAVE IT A LETTER. AND GUESS WHAT?
MR. NEHRENHEIM WAS NOT A CANDIDATE AT THE TIME. HE
DIDN'T BECOME A CANDIDATE UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2016. HOW
CAN HE BE A CANDIDATE CONTROLLING A P.A.C. WHEN HE'S NOT EVEN A CANDIDATE? IT'S -- SHE SAID IT. YOU CAN'T HAVE
THAT.

WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
47 ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, IT'S CLEAR IT HAS TO BE INFLUENCE

THAT IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH AND INVOLVEMENT THAT IS
EXTENSIVE ENOUGH THAT IT MAKES THE P.A.C. DO SOME

DECISION THAT THEY -- OR TAKE SOME DECISION OR TAKE SOME ACTION THAT THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE DONE. THERE

IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN THIS CASE, AND IT'S THEIR

BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THERE IS SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE HERE WHERE ANYTHING THAT MAYOR BRAND DID OR MR. NEHRENHEIM
DID IMPACTED A DECISION THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. MADE.

MR. CRAIG, THE TREASURER, AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF R.O.W. P.A.C., SAID, "NO. WE DID ALL OF OUR OWN
DECISION MAKING. NOBODY WAS CONTROLLING ANYTHING WE
DID. NOBODY WAS STRATEGIZING WITH US." HE SENT OUT AN
E-MAIL AND SAID, "IT'S MARTIN HOLMES AND ME. WE'RE THE
ONLY ONES MAKING DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF R.O.W. P.A.C."
THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THEY WORKED IN

CONJUNCTION WITH --
MS. ZIMMER: THAT'S OKAY IF THEY WORK -- IF
THEY CAN WORK IN CONJUNCTION. OF COURSE, THEY ALL HAD
THE SAME MESSAGE. THEY ALL WANTED MEASURE C TO PASS.

MR. NEHRENHEIM WANTED MR. BRAND TO BECOME MAYOR.

MR. BRAND WANTED MR. NEHRENHEIM TO BECOME COUNCILMEMBER.

THEY HAD THE SIMILAR MESSAGE. AND GUESS WHAT?
57 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS IN REDONDO BEACH AGREED WITH
THAT MESSAGE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

NOTHING. IT DOES NOT SHOW CONTROL. IT DOES NOT SHOW

THAT ANYTHING THAT THEY DID AFFECTED THE DECISION MAKING OF MR. CRAIG AND R.O.W. P.A.C. NOTHING AT ALL.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
48 THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION -- MR. HERTZ
LIKES TO TALK ABOUT GARBAGE. THERE'S A LOT OF GARBAGE

IN THIS CASE, AND IT'S NOT COMING FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. THERE'S GARBAGE ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFFS,
AND FRANKLY, YOUR HONOR, IT STINKS.

THE COURT: OKAY. COUNSEL?
MR. COLIN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN MR. BRAND RAN FOR
ELECTED OFFICE FOR THAT MARCH 7 ELECTION, HE WAS NOT THE MAYOR OF REDONDO BEACH. HE WAS THE DISTRICT 2 CITY

COUNCILMAN SEEKING TO OUST AN INCUMBENT MAYOR, AND
MR. NEHRENHEIM WAS SEEKING TO OUST AN INCUMBENT
DISTRICT 1 COUNCILWOMAN, AND R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS
SUPPORTING MEASURE C ON THE BALLOT. OKAY? THERE WAS

ONLY ONE PRIMARILY FORMED COMMITTEE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN

THE MEASURE C BALLOT ISSUE, AND THAT WAS THE COMMITTEE
THAT WAS BEING RUN BY MR. HERTZ AND HIS LAW FIRM. IT

WAS THE NO ON C, SAVE THE WATERFRONT, WITH MAJOR FUNDING BY REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC. THAT'S THE GROUP, THE

ONLY GROUP THAT WAS FORMED TO -- TO DEAL WITH MEASURE C, AND THAT GROUP SPENT $600,000 TO OPPOSE MEASURE C, AND
IT LOST. AND IN THE PROCESS, WE KNEW -- AND WE HEARD,
FROM MR. HERTZ HIMSELF, THAT HE WAS THE ASSISTANT

TREASURER OF THAT COMMITTEE, AND HE PAID HIMSELF AND HIS FIRM IN EXCESS OF $99,000 FROM THE MONEY THAT THESE
LLC'S WERE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS P.A.C. THAT HE FORMED.

THE COURT: IS HE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH?
MR. COLIN: WE DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE
WE WEREN'T A PART OF THAT; BUT WE DO KNOW THAT HIS SIDE 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
49 SPENT $600,000 ON THIS ELECTION, AND THEY LOST IT. THEY HAD A POTENTIAL $400 MILLION PROJECT THAT WAS GOING TO

PLACE STRUCTURES THE SIZE OF FIVE WALMARTS IN THAT

HARBOR AREA AND THEY LOST, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS
ABOUT.

THE COURT: I SAW THAT PICTURE. IT'S VERY --
MR. COLIN: EXACTLY.

THE COURT: -- IMPRESSIVE OF GOING INTO

KING HARBOR, AND THEY HAVE ALL -- ALL THE CARS GOING
INTO KING HARBOR.

MR. COLIN: A WALL OF --
THE COURT: IT WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE.

MR. COLIN: A WALL OF CONCRETE AND -- AND --

AND TRAFFIC EVERYWHERE, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED FOR THE HARBOR, AND THE PEOPLE SAID, "NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT FOR THIS SMALL TOWN." AND THE PEOPLE AGREED WITH
BILL BRAND; THEY AGREED WITH NILS NEHRENHEIM; THEY
AGREED WITH -- WITH R.O.W. P.A.C. AND WHEN I SAY
"R.O.W. P.A.C.," PEOPLE VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME TO

CANVASS NEIGHBORHOODS TO PROMOTE THAT -- TO PROMOTE THE POSITION THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. WAS TAKING. IT DIDN'T WANT
THAT. AND -- AND MR. BRAND AND MR. NEHRENHEIM, THEY
DIDN'T WANT IT, EITHER. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH

PEOPLE TAKING A SIMILAR POSITION AND ADVERTISING THAT
POSITION.

MR. BRAND PUT IN HIS NEWSPAPER AD, "YES ON C."
OKAY? HE PAID FOR THAT AD AND HE -- AND HE DECLARED
THAT AD COST.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
50 THE COURT: WELL, THEY RAN -- THEY RAN ON THAT
PLATFORM.

MR. COLIN: EXACTLY.

THE COURT: THEY RAN ON THE PLATFORM.

MR. COLIN: AND -- AND WHEN THEY DID THAT, THE

PEOPLE IN REDONDO BEACH AGREED WITH THEIR PLATFORM

BECAUSE THEY OUSTED THE INCUMBENT MAYOR WHO ALSO
SUPPORTED THE NO ON C POSITION. HE'S GONE.

MARTHA BARBEE, SHE'S GONE. NILS NEHRENHEIM, WHO SAID
YES ON C, IS THERE. TODD LOEWENSTEIN, WHO SAID YES ON
C, HE'S THERE. BILL BRAND, WHO --
THE COURT: SO IF YOU SAY YES ON C, WHAT ARE
YOU DOING IN THE COMMUNITY THERE?
MR. COLIN: EXACTLY. YOU ARE LETTING THE
COMMUNITY KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.

THE COURT: YEAH; BUT WHAT -- WHAT ARE YOU
DOING, YOU'RE STOPPING THE BUILDING?
MR. COLIN: YOU -- YOU STOP THE BUILDING;

BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE ENFORCING AND
YOU'RE -- AND YOU'RE -- AND YOU'RE SAYING, "THIS IS WHAT

A PRIOR MEASURE, MEASURE G, SAID, AND NOW WE ARE GOING
TO CLARIFY MEASURE G --" "MEASURE G BY AMENDING IT." IT HASN'T STOPPED A PROJECT FROM MOVING FORWARD. WHAT
MEASURE C DOES IS IT JUST SAYS "YOU'VE GOT TO COMPLY

WITH THE BUILDING STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY THE

PEOPLE IN ANOTHER BALLOT MEASURE, MEASURE G, AND YOU'VE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THAT; AND IF YOU COMPLY WITH IT, YOU GET YOUR PROJECT," AND THAT'S WHAT MEASURE C DID. IT
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
51 SAID, "YOU JUST NEED TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON." THAT'S ALL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT
THIS CASE IS ABOUT. THEY DIDN'T STOP THEM, PROHIBIT
THEM. THEY CAN STILL GO IN THERE AND THEY CAN BUILD
THEIR PROJECT. THEY JUST NOW CAN'T PUT UP A TOTAL OF
900,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. THEY HAVE GOT

TO -- AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AGREED WITH

THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH WHEN IT CERTIFIED -- IT
CERTIFIED THE RESULTS OF MEASURE C BACK ON AUGUST 8 OF
THIS YEAR. THAT'S APPROPRIATE. THAT'S THE LAW. WE

FIND THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE AND THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE
IN REDONDO WANT, AND IT'S OKAY WITH US.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CONTROL ISSUE.

MR. BRAND DIDN'T WRITE CHECKS FOR R.O.W. P.A.C. IT WAS
MR. HOLMES AND MR. WAYNE CRAIG WHO WERE ON THE ACCOUNT.

MR. BRAND AND -- YOU KNOW, MR. BRAND WAS ON HIS OWN
ACCOUNT IN HIS OWN SEPARATE CAMPAIGN. THE SAME THING
WITH NILS NEHRENHEIM. NILS NEHRENHEIM WASN'T ON THE
BANK ACCOUNT FOR R.O.W. P.A.C. NILS AND BILL BRAND DID
NOT DIRECT HOW R.O.W. P.A.C. SPENT ITS MONEY.

R.O.W. P.A.C. DIDN'T DIRECT HOW BILL SPENT HIS MONEY,
HOW NILS SPENT HIS MONEY. NOBODY DIRECTED ANYBODY ON

WHAT MESSAGE TO SEND OUT OR HOW TO SEND IT OUT OR WHEN
TO SEND IT OUT. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.

AND THESE CANDIDATES AND THIS P.A.C. HAD

VOLUNTEERS -- COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS WHO WERE KNOCKING ON

DOORS, AND YOU HEARD SOME TESTIMONY THAT THERE WERE EVEN

SOME OF THESE VOLUNTEERS WHO WERE DOING THEIR OWN FLIERS 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
52 IN FAVOR OF MEASURE C WHO WERE OUT THERE KNOCKING AND PASSING THINGS OUT. THOSE THINGS HAPPEN IN THESE SMALL
TOWNS. AND SO THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY

CONTROLLED, THAT THEY GAVE DIRECTION, THAT THEY EXERTED SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE. BILL BRAND IS RUNNING ON A
CITYWIDE BASIS FOR HIS SEAT. NILS NEHRENHEIM IS RUNNING

FOR A SMALLER ONE-FIFTH-THE-SIZE DISTRICT, THE SAME WITH MR. LOEWENSTEIN. R.O.W. P.A.C. IS DEALING WITH A MUCH
LARGER AREA. THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE DIRECTING
WAYNE CRAIG AND MARTIN -- AND MARTIN HOLMES. THESE GUYS WANT TO GET ELECTED. THEY'RE FOCUSING ON THEIR OWN

CAMPAIGNS, AND WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THEM WAS THAT

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEIR POSITION WAS ON THIS MAJOR PROJECT THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. EVERYBODY SAID, "YES
ON C," AND THE PEOPLE AGREED AND -- AND THEY VOTED THEM IN. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED.

AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE NOW IS THIS LAWSUIT THAT

HAS FOUND ITS WAY IN THE COURT FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS THAT

ATTEMPTS TO PUNISH THEM BECAUSE THEY GOT THEIR MESSAGE
OUT. THEY WERE BETTER AT GETTING THEIR MESSAGES OUT AND

THE PEOPLE --
THE COURT: WHO WAS BEHIND THIS LAWSUIT?
MR. COLIN: IT'S REDON- -- WELL, AS WE HEARD
YESTERDAY -- AS WE HEARD YESTERDAY BY MR. HERTZ'S

TESTIMONY, REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC, HAS BEEN
PAYING FOR THIS LAWSUIT. YOU HEARD ARNETTE TRAVIS SAY

THAT SHE -- SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE TERMS OF A RETAINER
AGREEMENT THAT SHE HAD SIGNED WITH THE SUTTON LAW FIRM. 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
53 OKAY? SHE SAID THAT SHE HAD SIGNED THE VERIFICATION OF THIS VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND THAT SHE ONLY MET MR. HERTZ THE DAY AFTER SHE HAD SIGNED THE VERIFICATION.

AND WHEN I QUESTIONED CHRIS VOISEY, THE OTHER
PLAINTIFF -- AND THESE TWO WERE OPPONENTS OF MEASURE C.

THEY WERE ALSO OPPONENTS OF NILS NEHRENHEIM, BILL BRAND, TODD LOEWENSTEIN. MR. -- MR. VOISEY TESTIFIED HE DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW WHAT THE TERMS OF HIS RETAINER AGREEMENT WERE

OR IF HE EVEN HAD A RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH THE SUTTON
LAW FIRM. WHAT HE SAID WAS, "I MAY HAVE SIGNED SOME
PAPERS, AND IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION," RIGHT
OUT OF HIS MOUTH. IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION ON
THE LAST DAY OF TRIAL. SO WE KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T PAY
ANY OF THE COSTS. THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR DEPOSITIONS.

THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR THE FILING FEE. THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR MOTION FEES. THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR COURT REPORTERS.

THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THE SUTTON LAW
FIRM IS THE ONE PUSHING THIS?
MR. COLIN: THE SUTTON LAW FIRM. THE SUTTON
LAW FIRM HAS -- HAS PAID THIS. AND AS YOU RECALL

ANN RAVEL SAYING IN HER TESTIMONY, AND SHE SAID IT IN

HER DEPOSITION, SHE DID NOT CONSIDER ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY AS HER CLIENTS. HER CLIENT WAS THE SUTTON
LAW FIRM, AND THE SUTTON LAW FIRM WAS GOING TO PAY HER.

AND WE KNOW FROM MR. HERTZ'S TESTIMONY

YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS BEING -- HE WAS PROVIDING THE

SERVICES AND -- AND THAT REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC, WAS PAYING FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
54 NOW, THE DEFENDANTS TRIED TO OBTAIN THIS
INFORMATION VERY EARLY ON; BECAUSE AS YOU SEE IN OUR

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, WE -- WE CLAIMED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE THAT THESE TWO PLAINTIFFS -- THE TWO PLAINTIFFS,

TRAVIS AND VOISEY, WERE NOT PROPER PARTIES WITH THE

STANDING TO BRING THIS LAWSUIT, AND THEY OBJECTED TO
PRODUCING RETAINER AGREEMENTS.

THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE SHELL
PLAINTIFFS?
MR. COLIN: EXACTLY. THEY ARE PROXIES. THEY

ARE PROXIES OF REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, AND THEY HAVE

BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT AS A PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO

SIDESTEP AND TO AVOID AN ANTI-SLAPP LAWSUIT OR A
MOTION -- AN ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. HAD WE KNOWN VERY EARLY

ON THAT REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC, WHICH IS IN

PARTNERSHIP WITH CENTERCAL, THE PROPONENTS OF THIS MAJOR

PROJECT -- HAD WE KNOWN OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THE

FUNDING, THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FILE THAT
AN- -- ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AND GET THIS CASE KICKED OUT.

BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE DIRECTED NOT TO GIVE THE ANSWERS
IN DEPOSITION; THEY REFUSED TO PRODUCE RETAINER
AGREEMENTS; THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE FOR ANY OF THE COSTS

THAT WERE PAID FOR OR INCURRED, WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL

YESTERDAY -- UNTIL YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WHAT THE

INVOLVEMENT WAS OF REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT, LLC, AND

THAT'S THE ENTITY THAT IS -- THAT IS PROSECUTING THIS
CASE; THAT IS PAYING THE SUTTON LAW FIRM TO REPRESENT
THESE PLAINTIFFS; AND IT -- IT'S THAT FIRM -- OR IT'S
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
55 THAT LLC THAT IS EXTRACTING ITS VENDETTA AGAINST ALL OF THESE DEFENDANTS.

AND I WANT TO POINT OUT, YOUR HONOR, TOO, I
ALSO REPRESENT LINDA MOFFAT; AND IF YOU READ THE

VERIFIED COMPLAINT, THERE'S HARDLY ANYTHING IN THERE

ABOUT WHAT LINDA MOFFAT DID TO BE NAMED HERE, OTHER THAN THE FACT SHE WAS THE TREASURER. SHE'S A VOLUNTEER
TREASURER. SHE LIVES IN THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES
ESTATES. SHE DIDN'T CAMPAIGN FOR MEASURE C. SHE DIDN'T
ATTEND FUNDRAISERS. SHE -- SHE DIDN'T -- SHE DIDN'T DO

ANYTHING THAT WOULD EVEN INDICATE ANY CONTROL OR ANY
INFLUENCE BY HER ON R.O.W. P.A.C. R.O.W. P.A.C. DID ITS OWN THING; AND THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN THAT R.O.W. P.A.C. DID ITS OWN PLANNING, ITS OWN STRATEGY.

IT MADE ITS OWN DECISIONS, AND WAYNE CRAIG EVEN SENT AN E-MAIL OUT TO THE DEFENDANTS SAYING, "ONLY MARTIN HOLMES

AND MYSELF HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE ACTIVITIES
OF R.O.W. P.A.C."

EVERYBODY ABIDED BY -- BY THAT DIRECTIVE, JUST
LIKE MR. BRAND DID. HE ASKED THE FPPC QUESTIONS. HE
RELIED ON THE ADVICE THAT HE GAVE THE FPPC. AND IF YOU
LOOK AT EXHIBIT 16 TO THE -- TO THE EXHIBIT BOOK, YOU
WILL SEE WHERE MR. BRAND, AFTER HE RECEIVED ADVICE FROM

THE FPPC, EVEN SAID TO THE -- TO THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE, "DON'T ASK ME FOR ADVICE. I CAN'T HELP. I
CAN'T HELP YOU STRATEGIZE. THIS IS WHAT I'M GETTING
FROM THE FPPC. SORRY." YOU KNOW, "I DON'T MAKE THE
RULES."
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
56 AND EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT, HE STILL GETS

DRAGGED IN BECAUSE THESE PLAINTIFFS SAY THAT THERE
ISN'T -- THAT THERE ISN'T TRANSPARENCY. THERE ISN'T
DISCLOSURE. THE ONLY TRANSPARENCY IN THIS CASE IS ON
THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS. EVEN MISS RAVEL SAID,
"THESE FORMS ARE --" "THESE FORMS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.

THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL HERE. EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD."
AND SHE SAID, "AND I NEVER SAID THERE WAS ANYTHING
ILLEGAL," AND YET KNOWING HER POSITION, THESE PLAINTIFFS

CONTINUED TO BRING THIS LAWSUIT AND TO PROSECUTE ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

COUNSEL?
MR. NAYEBDADASH: I CAN BE QUICK, YOUR HONOR.

I CAN BE QUICK.

SO AS MY CO-COUNSEL MISS ZIMMER POINTED OUT,

MISS RAVEL HAD A FEW GREAT QUOTES, AND ONE THAT
MR. COLIN ALLUDED TO, SHE SAID, "I HAVE NEVER INDICATED THAT ANY OF THIS WAS ILLEGAL, EVER." THAT WAS THEIR --
THAT WAS THEIR EXPERT WITNESS.

SO THE PLAINTIFFS IN THEIR OPENING, THEY CLAIM
THAT THEY HAD A SMOKING GUN; AND WHEN IT COMES TO

PROVING THE SMOKING GUN, WHAT WE GOT WERE PICTURES,

PEOPLE HOLDING SIGNS TOGETHER, OUT AND ABOUT, AND MAYBE A FEW E-MAILS BETWEEN THEM; BUT THERE WAS NO PATTERN OF STRATEGIZING. THERE WAS NO COORDINATION. THERE WAS

NO -- NO DIRECT OR ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT

WOULD GO OVER THE LINE AS FAR AS A CONTROL CANDIDATE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
57 GOES. IT'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT HOLDING A SIGN OR WEARING

THE SAME SHIRT SOMEHOW DENOTES THAT THIS PERSON IS

CONTROLLING THAT PERSON, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S A BRIDGE
TOO FAR IN A CASE LIKE THIS. BECAUSE IF YOU HOLD A

FUNDRAISING EVENT TOGETHER OR IF YOU HOLD A SIGN

TOGETHER OR IF YOU HAVE SOME GUY SINGING A SONG AT A

PIER SOMEWHERE, THAT DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO SAYING, "WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS." "WE'RE GOING TO HIT THIS
DISTRICT." "WE'RE GOING TO SAY THIS MESSAGE." THERE'S
NOTHING SPECIFIC. THERE IS ALL OF THESE GENERAL THINGS,

AND, MOSTLY, THEY RELY ON PEOPLE BEING IN THE SAME ROOM TOGETHER.

THE COURT: DOESN'T CALIFORNIA GET INTO
EMPLOYMENT LAW? CORPORATION LAW? WHO IS PRINCIPAL?
AND WE HAVE A BODY OF LAW AND -- ON THOSE SUBJECTS.

MR. NAYEBDADASH: WE DO.

THE COURT: CONTROL.

MR. NAYEBDADASH: WE DO. THE FPPC, UNDER THE
STATUTES BEFORE YOU TODAY, HAS THEIR OWN DEFINITION; BUT

UNDER ALMOST ANY OF THOSE DEFINITIONS, WE DON'T COME
CLOSE. WE DON'T COME CLOSE. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY HOLDING
A SIGN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING; BUT WHAT WE DO HAVE

IS -- AND SOME OF THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IS IN EXHIBIT 16 WHEREIN BILL BRAND

SPECIFICALLY TELLS PEOPLE, ONE OF WHICH IS MY CLIENT,
WAYNE CRAIG, WHERE HE SAYS, "DON'T COORDINATE ME WITH.

DO NOT DO THIS. I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS." THAT'S THE

ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE BEFORE THE 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
58 COURT, AND THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING THE COURT THE WHOLE TIME. THEY'RE TRYING -- THEY WERE

TRYING THEIR BEST NOT ONLY TO NOT COORDINATE, BUT THEY
WERE TELLING EACH OTHER, "WE DON'T WANT TO COORDINATE." BUT THE PLAINTIFFS WANT TO SAY, "OKAY. WELL,

YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE KNEW EACH OTHER AND THEY HELD
SIGNS TOGETHER." WELL, YES. YOU KNOW WHAT?
REDONDO BEACH ISN'T THAT BIG. DO THESE PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER? SURE. DOES THAT MEAN THEY CONTROL EACH OTHER?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

AND TO PERSECUTE MY CLIENTS BECAUSE THEY ALL

KNOW EACH OTHER OR THEY MIGHT BE POLITICAL RIVALS IS

AKIN TO MAKING THEM GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION, AND THAT --

THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF BASIC JURISPRUDENCE, WHERE WE

CAN FREELY ASSOCIATE WITH WHOMEVER WE WANT AND WE CAN
FREELY SAY WHATEVER WE WANT; BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE'S A

PUNISHMENT FOR THAT AND THAT PUNISHMENT IS RIGHT HERE
RIGHT NOW. IT'S THE $500,000. IT'S THE AMENDMENT TO
THE 410'S AND THE 460'S AND THE IMPENDING FEES BY THE
FPPC, FAIR -- YEAH.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE -- TO
THIS COURT THAT -- WAS THERE COMMUNICATION? WAS THERE
SIGN HOLDING OR COMMON SHIRTS WORN? SURE. IS THERE ANY

EVIDENCE HERE THAT COMES CLOSE TO SHOWING THAT ONE

CANDIDATE, NILS NEHRENHEIM, OR BILL BRAND CONTROLLED
SOMEBODY? AND THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE, AND THAT HAS
NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE'S NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AS TO ANY
OF THAT.
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
59 THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. OKAY.

COUNSELOR, MR. HERTZ?
MR. HERTZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'D LIKE

TO START WITH REQUESTING THE COURT'S PREFERENCE IN TERMS OF CONTROL. I -- I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO

THROUGH THE LIST OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE SHOWED
WITH REGARD TO MR. NEHRENHEIM AND MR. BRAND RELATIVE TO.

THE COURT: I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF

CIRCUMSTANCES --
MR. HERTZ: WE WOULD DO IT JUST --
THE COURT: -- WHICH COULD --
MR. HERTZ: -- QUICKLY.

THE COURT: -- GO EITHER WAY, YES.

MR. HERTZ: AND THEN I'D LIKE TO CORRECT THE

RECORD ON SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT I THINK WERE

DISCUSSED THAT I DON'T THINK ARE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE

AND MAY OR MAY NOT EVER BE RELEVANT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT
AT THIS PHASE WHERE WE'RE LITIGATING THE MERITS.

SO ON THE CONTROLLING CANDIDATE, THERE'S THE
ASH PIRAYOU LETTER WHICH DISCUSSES VARIOUS ELEMENTS.

THERE'S AMBER MALTBIE WHO SAID, "CONTROL DOES NOT HAVE A BRIGHT-LINE TEST. IT'S REALLY MORE OF A SPECTRUM." AND

ON ONE SIDE IS IF THERE WERE NO INTERACTIONS, NO

INVOLVEMENT BETWEEN THE BALLOT MEASURE COMMITTEE AND THE

CANDIDATE --
THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO

DECIDE --
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
60 MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.

THE COURT: WAS THERE CONTROL OR NOT CONTROL?
MR. HERTZ: EXACTLY. AND SO THERE'S THIS

SCALE, AND ONE SIDE WOULD BE EVERYBODY AGREES THERE'S NO CONTROL; AT THE END WOULD BE -- LET'S SAY IF WAYNE CRAIG

HAD BEEN A CANDIDATE AND HAD ALSO BEEN RUNNING
R.O.W. P.A.C., I THINK, PROBABLY, EVERYONE WOULD AGREE

THERE WAS CONTROL, SO WE HAVE SOMETHING BETWEEN THOSE
TWO CONTINUUMS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE VARIOUS EVENTS,

THERE WAS --
THE COURT: WELL, CANDIDATES CAN WORK IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSITION. THEY DO IT ALL THE
TIME, DON'T THEY?
MR. HERTZ: THEY -- THEY CAN WORK IN
CONJUNCTION. THE QUESTION IS DO THEY MEET THOSE VARIOUS

CRITERIA WHERE THEY BECOME SO BOUND UP WITH IT THAT THEY

ARE EXERTING A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE, THAT THERE'S JOINT

MONEY GOING BACK AND FORTH --
THE COURT: I DON'T FIND THAT THEY EXERTED A
SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE, COUNSEL. I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT
NOW. I DON'T FIND THAT. I WOULD FIND FOR THE
DEFENDANTS ON THAT ISSUE. I DON'T HAVE A --
MR. HERTZ: DOES THE COURT WANT TO HEAR

ADDITIONAL --
THE COURT: I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH -- I
MEAN, THEY'RE DOING THINGS. THEY'RE NOT STRATEGIZING.

THEY'RE NOT CONTROLLING. I DON'T SEE THE CONTROL ISSUE.

I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT -- THE WORDING
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
61 OF -- LET'S SEE THE WORDING -- THE EXACT WORDING IS
"SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON THE ACTIONS." CERTAINLY,

THERE'S SOME INFLUENCE, BUT THEY'RE WORKING IN
CONJUNCTION, SO THAT WOULD BE MY FINDING, COUNSELOR.

MR. HERTZ: AND THE OTHER CLAIM IS -- THE

OTHER PART OF THAT CALCULATION FOR CONTROLLING IS

WHETHER THE PARTIES ENJOY -- JOINED TOGETHER IN JOINT
EXPENDITURES, AND WE SAW WITH THIS ST. ROCK FUNDRAISER

THAT THEY ALL -- THAT THERE WERE PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE
FUNDRAISER. THERE WAS REVENUE OR CONTRIBUTIONS

GENERATED, AND THEN THOSE WERE PAID OUT TO THE VARIOUS
PARTIES AS EXPENDITURES. WE ALSO SAW THE SHARING OF

SLOGANS AND LOGOS AND CAMPAIGN MATERIALS AND T-SHIRTS

AND EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT IN FUNDRAISING FOR ONE
ANOTHER, EVEN TO THIS DAY; AND WE HAVE BILL BRAND
E-MAILING THE FPPC AND SAYING, "I WANT TO STRATEGIZE
WITH R.O.W. P.A.C. WE WANT TO SHARE INFORMATION."
THE COURT: ARE THEY ON THE COMMITTEE? ARE
THEY ON THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES? THEY'RE SEPARATE
COMMITTEES, RIGHT?
MR. HERTZ: THESE ARE SEPARATE COMMITTEES.

THE COURT: SEPARATE COMMITTEES.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.

THE COURT: AND -- AND MAKING SEPARATE
DECISIONS.

MR. HERTZ: WELL, IN OUR VIEW, THE EVIDENCE IS
THAT -- THAT THE DECISIONS OF R.O.W. P.A.C. WERE
SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY BRAND AND NEHRENHEIM; AND
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
62 THAT THE EVIDENCE, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE E-MAIL CHAIN,

THE COMMONALITY OF SHARING RESOURCES, WE HEARD ABOUT THE

POLITICAL DATA --
THE COURT: THERE'S GENERAL -- I MEAN, THERE
WAS A GENERAL PURPOSE. STRATEGIZING, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
EVIDENCE OF STRATEGIZING.

MR. HERTZ: WE -- WE --
THE COURT: DO WE?
MR. HERTZ: WE PROFFER THAT THERE IS, BUT THE
COURT OBVIOUSLY HAS TO DETERMINED THAT.

THE COURT: I DON'T SEE -- YOU KNOW, THEY TALK
IT OVER. THEY'RE WORKING IT -- TO ME, THEY'RE WORKING

IN CONJUNCTION, SO I WOULD FIND THAT THERE IS NOT

CONTROL AND FIND ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS BRAND AND
NEHRENHEIM AND THE TREASURER.

ARE YOU REALLY GOING AFTER THE TREASURER?
MR. HERTZ: THE TREASURER IS NAMED. THERE'S
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. THE TREASURER IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR FILING AND SIGNING THE CAMPAIGN REPORTS.

THE COURT: THE TREASURER WOULD BE OUT, TOO.

I DON'T FIND CONTROL.

MR. HERTZ: JUST TO CLARIFY --
THE COURT: I WOULD GO WITH DEFENDANTS ON THAT
ISSUE.

MR. HERTZ: JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THE

TREASURER -- THE TREASURER WAS NOT NAMED WITHOUT
THOUGHT. I MEAN, THE LAWSUIT SAYS THE CONTROLLING
CANDIDATE AND THE TREASURER HAD THESE DUTIES. TO THE
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
63 EXTENT THE COMMITTEE WAS CONTROLLED, THE TREASURER,

ALONG WITH THE CONTROLLING CANDIDATE, WOULD HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE THAT; BUT -- BUT -- SO THAT'S THAT.

AND THEN THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHER, I THINK

MISSTATEMENTS THAT I JUST WOULD WANT TO CORRECT FOR THE RECORD. THE SUTTON LAW FIRM HAS CLIENTS IN THIS MATTER.

WE ARE NOT DIRECTLY --
THE COURT: ARE THEY SHAM CLIENTS?
MR. HERTZ: NO.

THE COURT: NO, THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

THEY DON'T PUT ANY MONEY INTO THIS THING.

MR. HERTZ: THEY'RE --
THE COURT: THEY'RE THERE.

MR. HERTZ: I WILL REPRESENT --
THE COURT: THEY'RE NAMES.

MR. HERTZ: -- TO THE COURT THEY ARE --
THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. HERTZ: -- RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. HERTZ: THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT.

THEY SUBMITTED TO DEPOSITIONS. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE AT
TRIAL EVERY DAY. THEY TESTIFIED THAT THEY ARE VOTERS.

THEY FOLLOW ELECTIONS. THEY MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA.

THE COURT: BUT THEY'RE NOT GENERATING THIS
LAWSUIT. THEY DIDN'T GO OUT AND FIND YOU, DID THEY?

DID THEY GO OUT AND FIND YOU AS AN ATTORNEY FOR THIS
SITUATION?
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
64 MR. HERTZ: I -- I FORGET THE EXACT
CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THEY CONTACTED ME. WERE THEY
REFERRED TO ME BY SOMEBODY ELSE WHO KNEW OF MY SERVICES? I DON'T REMEMBER; BUT, CERTAINLY, PAYING --
THE COURT: THEY'RE SHILLS, BASICALLY.

MR. HERTZ: I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

I MEAN, ANY -- ANY PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS A

PLAINTIFF WHO IS A RESIDENT OF THE JURISDICTION MAY OR

MAY NOT BE SUPPORTED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, EITHER

EMOTIONALLY OR FINANCIALLY, IN THE SAME WAY THAT THERE

IS -- YOU KNOW, AN INSURANCE COMPANY PAYING FOR THE
DEFENSE OF A -- OF AN INSURED. I MEAN, WE --
THE COURT: THAT'S A DIFFERENT -- THAT'S A
DIFFERENT SITUATION.

MR. HERTZ: THERE ARE OFTEN THIRD-PARTY
FUNDERS. I AM JUST SAYING I HAVE TO STRENUOUSLY
DISAGREE WITH THAT TERM "SHAM" OR "SHILL." IF THEY --

IF THEY HAD SIGNED A THING, NEVER MET ME AT ALL, NEVER

CARED ABOUT THE CASE --
THE COURT: WELL, THEY ARE INTERESTED.

MR. HERTZ: -- WERE NOT INVOLVED --
THE COURT: THEY WERE INTERESTED PEOPLE IN
THE -- IN THE COMMUNITY.

MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. SO I THINK THEY MEET THE
REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST STANDARD. THEY'RE BENEFICIALLY
INTERESTED.

THE COURT: BUT WHO IS CONTROLLING THE
LAWSUIT? WHO IS HAVING A HIGH-POWERED ATTORNEY AND
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
65 GOING INTO THIS CASE?
MR. HERTZ: THERE CERTAINLY WAS INPUT FROM THE
PAYING CLIENT; BUT I DON'T THINK THAT RENDERS THE TWO

HUMAN BEINGS WHO HAVE GIVEN A YEAR AND A HALF OF THEIR

LIFE TO THIS LAWSUIT, HAVE BEEN IN MANY MEETINGS WITH

ME, IN DEPOSITIONS AND TESTIMONY, I THINK THAT'S AN
INSULT TO CALL THEM "SHAM" OR "SHILL PLAINTIFFS."
THE COURT: NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH
THAT. FROM WHAT I HEARD IN THE TESTIMONY HERE, THEY HAD NO PART, AND THEY HAVE -- NOT PAYING ANY OF THIS EVENT.

MR. HERTZ: BUT WE KNOW THAT -- WE KNOW THAT
FROM A -- LET'S SAY WE ARE AT THE FEE MOTION STAGE. I

MEAN, LET'S SAY WE HAD DONE IT PRO BONO, THEY -- WE
WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED TO FEES IF WE HAD WON. SO WE

KNOW FEES ARE NOT -- WHEN I HIRED NICK SANDERS AS MY

ATTORNEY YESTERDAY FOR FIVE MINUTES, I DIDN'T HAVE TO
PAY HIM THE PROVERBIAL DOLLAR. SO THE FACT THAT -- AND

THAT MAY REQUIRE BRIEFING --
THE COURT: BUT YOU'RE REQUESTING SOMETHING

LIKE FIVE AND A HALF -- WHAT, FIVE --
MR. HERTZ: WELL, FOR NOW, I'M REQUESTING
ZERO; AND, OBVIOUSLY, IF WE DON'T PREVAIL --
THE COURT: AND IF YOU WIN -- PREVAIL, SO --
MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. WE -- WE WOULD -- WE

BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO SEEK FEES UNDER THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND THE CCP. THE AMOUNT WOULD BE
DETERMINED. CERTAINLY, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO
SAY, "WELL, THAT'S NOT FAIR, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE 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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
66 PAID BY SOMEBODY ELSE."
THE COURT: IT'S NOT FAIR. COUNSEL, I FEEL
IT'S NOT FAIR AT ALL. I DON'T FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS
IN THIS CASE WERE CULPABLE. I FIND THAT THEY -- I

FOUND -- I MADE THE FINDING ALREADY THEY ACTED IN GOOD
FAITH AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY RULING. I FIND FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.

I DENY THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND SINCE THE

ELECTION IS OVER, THERE'S NO NEED TO MODIFY THEIR
STATEMENTS. SO THAT WOULD --
MR. HERTZ: I UNDERSTAND. AND IF I MAY

JUST --
MR. COLIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. HERTZ: -- SAY THAT THERE WERE JUST SOME

STATEMENTS THAT -- THAT I WAS RUNNING THE CAMPAIGN, SO I

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I -- WE PROVIDED SERVICES AS
LAWYER AND TREASURER TO THE NO ON C.

THE COURT: YOU WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED. YOU
WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. YOU
WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

MR. HERTZ: I -- I --
THE COURT: YOU WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
CAMPAIGN.

MR. HERTZ: I HAVE TO DISAGREE. I MEAN,

DEEPLY INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT I REVIEWED THE CAMPAIGN
MAIL TO MAKE SURE IT COMPLIED WITH THE LAW. WE FILED
THE CAMPAIGN REPORT. WE DIDN'T MAKE STRATEGIC
DECISIONS. WE DIDN'T EDIT THE CONTENT OF THE MAIL. I
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
67 JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR THIS IS NOT

THE SUTTON LAW FIRM RUNNING THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST
MEASURE C. WE HAD A PAYING CLIENT. THE DISCLOSURE WENT
FORTH ON ALL OF THOSE FORMS -- FORM 460'S, AND SO THE --

I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE AN IMPLICATION THAT SOMEHOW THE SUTTON LAW FIRM EITHER, QUOTE, "PAID ITSELF," BECAUSE WE NEVER DID. WE HAVE A CLIENT WHO SAYS --
THE COURT: YOUR CLIENT --
MR. HERTZ: -- "YES, YOU BILLED THIS MANY
HOURS TO BE TREASURER --" "ASSISTANT TREASURER AND --"
AND LAWYER"; AND A 600,00 CAMPAIGN, $99,000 IS NOT
INAPT; AND WE ALSO MAY HAVE HAD -- I FORGET IF WE HAD
VENDORS OR SUBVENDORS. AT ANY RATE, I THINK THESE ARE
COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES.

OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE HERE TODAY ON THE VERDICT
FOR THE CASE IN CHIEF. THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A FUTURE HEARING ABOUT FEES. OBVIOUSLY, IF WE WERE TO PREVAIL,
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FEE COMPONENT; BUT I JUST WANT

THE RECORD -- THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PERSONAL
ASPERSIONS ASKED.

THE COURT: WELL, I FIND FOR THE DEFENDANTS,

SO, THEREFORE, A FINDING FOR THE DEFENDANT -- ALL THE

DEFENDANTS, SO --
MR. HERTZ: THAT -- THAT'S --
THE COURT: -- YOU WOULD NOT BE THE PREVAILING
PARTY.

MR. HERTZ: I -- I UNDERSTAND; SO IF THAT'S
THE CASE, I -- I ASSUME WE'RE DONE HERE. WE REQUEST A
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS
68 STATEMENT OF DECISION. I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY PUT THAT REQUEST IN WRITING.

THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, A STATEMENT OF
DECISION, YOU PREPARE.

MR. COLIN: I WILL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PREPARE IT.

MR. COLIN: I WILL, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE
THE REPORTER HERE.

THE COURT: DRAW UP A STATEMENT OF DECISION,

AND YOU TAKE MY RULINGS FROM THE COURT REPORTER --
MR. COLIN: OKAY.

THE COURT: -- AND THERE WE GO.

MR. HERTZ: WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME --
MR. COLIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. ZIMMER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. HERTZ: -- AND YOUR ATTENTION.

THE COURT: VERY GOOD. VERY INTERESTING. THE
ELECTION IS OVER. THE ELECTION, MAYBE, IS FINALLY OVER.

OKAY.

MS. ZIMMER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU ALL FOR PARTICIPATING.

MR. COLIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(WHEREUPON, PROCEEDINGS IN THE

ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER WERE
CONCLUDED AT 11:13 A.M.)
* * *
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

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 55 HON. MALCOLM H. MACKEY, JUDGE

ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY,

PLAINTIFFS,
VS.

BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017;
LINDA MOFFATT; RESCUE OUR
WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE CRAIG;
MARTIN HOLMES; NILS NEHRENHEIM,
AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.
__________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. BC 665330

REPORTER'S

CERTIFICATE
I, LAURA D. GUERRERO, CSR NO. 7684, A

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER OF THE COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 68, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE

AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND TESTIMONY

TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON
NOVEMBER 20, 2018.

DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018.
______________________________
LAURA D. GUERRERO, CSR 7684
1 2
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
T2
13 I4
15 16
17 18
l9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 THE SUTTON LAW FIRM, PC
Bradlev W. Hertz. State Bar No. 138564
Nichol-as L. Sanders, State Bar No. 307402
22815 Ventura Boulevard, # 405
Los Aneeles. CA 91364
Tel: 81{tsgi-zg+g
Fax: 415/732-7701
Email : [email protected]
Attornevs for Plaintiffs

ARNETTE TRAVIS
and CHRIS VOISEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF'CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TINLIMITED JURISDICTION
Case No. 8C665330
(Assigned for AII Purposes to the Honorable
Juttge Malcoln H. Mackey - Depafiment 55)

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND

DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED
JI]DGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL;
DECLARATIONS OF ARI{ETTE

TRAYIS AND CHRIS VOISEY
Trial Date; November 14, 20t8
Complaint f iledl June 15, 2017
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBJECTiONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY ARNETTE TRAVIS ANd CHRTS VO]SEY,
BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR
2017; LINDA MOFFAT; RESCUE OUR
WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE CRAIG;
MARTIN HOLMES; NILS
NEHRENFIEIM; and DOES 1 -25,
Plaintiffs,
v
Defendants
I
2 .,)
4 5
6 .1
I
9 10
11 T2
13 L4
15 16
T7
18 79
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 plaintiffs ARNETTE TRAVIS and CIIRIS VOISEY ('?laintiffs") heteby submit this Response to Defendants BILL BRAND, BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017 and LINDA MOFFAT's (the "Bfand Defendants") Reply to Plaintiffs' Objections to Proposed Judgment After Court Trial ("Reply"). After hard-fought litigation anda 5-day trial, the Court concluded, onNovernber20,20lB, thatitwasrulinginfavor ofDefendants.

Plaintiffs requested a Statement of Decision, and the Court ordered Defendarrts' counsel to prepare one. In addition to preparing a Proposed Staternent of Decision (to which plaintiffs have obiected), Defendants prernaturely prepared a Proposed Judgment (to which Plaintiffs also objected).

Instead of considering the matter subrnitted and awaiting the Courl's Staternent of Decision and Judgment, the Brand Defendants replied to Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Proposed Judgment. Because the Brand Defendants' Reply - like Defendants' Proposed Judgment and Proposed Statement of Decision - is loaded with false, extraneous, irrelevant, prejudicial, and objectionable matter, Plaintiffs are dutybognd to ensure that the Court is not misled by Defendants, and therefore submit this Response (the "ResPonse").

The Brand Defendants first argue thatthe Judicial Council Form Judgmentthat Plaintiffs lodged with the Court as a counter-proposal to Defendants' Proposed Judgment - is inappropriate for this oase (Reply,2:l - 3:13). However, Local Rule 3,2l3(b)makes clear that a specially prepared judgment may be used only o'when a
lengthy or detailed judgment is necessary, or when different relief is sought against different defendants.o' That a lengthy and detailed judgment is not necessary is made clear by Defendants' 2-pageProposed Judgment, and the Complaint sought the same relief against each Defendant - i.e., an injunction that each Defendant amend its campaign staternents to comply with the Political Reform Act- Thus, neither requirement for a specially prepared judgment has been meL Insofar as the two requirements for a specially prepared judgnent have not been mel it follows that a

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBJECTTONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY 2 1
2 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
T2
13 I4
15 76
t7
18 t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Judicial Council form Juclgment (as proposed by Plaintiffs) and not a specially ptepared judgment (as proposed by Defendants) is appropriate.

More important than the form of the Judgrnent is of course the content of the Judgment. In this regard, Defendants have taken incredible liberties to pack the proposed Judgment with "findings" that the Court did not make and which have no place in a Judgment. In this regard, the Brand Defendants assert that "[t]he Proposed Judgment is very specific with respect to each of the Defendants not violating any provisions of the Political Refonn Act and related regulations." (Reply, 2:14-16.) The Court, however, did not make such broad findings. Of course, the Court was not asked to, and did not, conduct a wholesale review of Defendants' actions vis-d-vis the Political Reform Act throughout the entire campaign. Instead, the Court found that Defendants did not violate fwo very particularized aspects of the Political Reform Actthe "primarily formed" and "controlled" committee rules.

The Court did not, as Defendants are trying to suggest via their overbroad and fatally flawed Proposed Judgment, completely "bless" all of Defendants' political activities. This is especially important, given that the Fair Political Practices Commission is still investigating Defendants, who are apparently attempting to trick the Cor-11t into giving them a proverbial "Get Out of Jail Free" card that they can present to the Fair Politioal Practices Commission. As all of Defendants' conduct during the campaign was not litigated before this Court, and this case involved two very specific provisions of the Political Reform Act, Defendants are not entitled to a "blanket" ruling that they conmifled no violation under the Political Reform Act throughout the entire campaign. The ruiing must be limited to what was tried.

The Judicial Council and tlre L.A. Superior Court - by virtue of the J[ID-100 fom and Local Rule 3.213ft) - have made it clear that a Judgment is the vehicle by which the Court declares who prevailed at trial. It is not the place to set forth the Court's reasoning and specific findings on issues and sub-issues (as repeated in the Brand Defendants' Reply, at2:14 -23) - that is the purpose of the Statement of Decision.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFIER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAV1S AND CHRIS VOISEY 1 2
J
4 5
6 8
9 10
1t
T2
13 t4
15 16
T7
18 19
20 2l
))
23 24
25 26
27 28
In frrrther focusing on matters that are not relevant to the form and content of the Judgnent, the Brand Defendants levei
false. extraneous, irrelevant. preiudicial. and obiectionable. Specifically, the Brand Defendants falsely clairn that Plaintiffs' counsel did not obtain informed rnnitten consent from Plaintiffs regarding a third party's flrnding of the lawsuit, and thus violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3-3 10(F). (Reply, 3: 1 8-28.) The Brand Defendants' claim in this regard is utterly without merit.

Plaintiffs' counselobtained informed written consent from Plaintiffs,, ptior to the filing of the lawsuit, regarding Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC's ("RBW") funding of the lawsuit. In faot, Plaintiffs welcomed such funding, because without it, they would not have been able to fund their lawsuit. (See Arnette Travis' and Chris Voisey's declarations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, at paragraphs 8 & 9 and 6 & 7, respectively.) That Travis and Voisey did not recall every single detail, in Novernber of 2018, of their lune2077 written engagement of the Law Firm, is not evidence of a lack of consent. Moreovero the Defendants never questioned the Plaintiffs at deposition or trial as to whether they had provided the consent for another person or entity to fund their litigation costs. Defendants' is nothing more than another false personal attackon Plainti'ffs and their counsel.

Not only did they provide their informed consent with regard to RBW's funding, but Plaintiffs were true bona lide olaintiffs in every sense of the word - formally engaging Plaintiffs' counsel; reviewing and working with their counsel on the Complaint, discovery strategy, and trial strategy; frequently and consistently comrnunicating with Plaintiffs' counsel throughout the litigation; attending depositions and trial; and otherwise being aotive and key participants in all aspocts oftheir lawsuit.

To call Plaintifts shills or shams, rnerely because they could not afford counsel, is unsupported by the facts and the law, and is an insult to every plaintiff who does not firnd his or own case. This includes personal inj.rry plaintiffs; class action plaintiffs; plaintiffs who are being represented on a pro bono basis or by non-profit legal

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBIECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 T4
15 T6
17 i8
I9
20 2I
22 LJ
24 25
26 27
28 fouldations; plaintiffs who obtain litigation loans; defendants whose cases are firnded by employers, guatantofs, or insurance companies; and a host of other types of parties who cannot and do not pay their own way during litigation. Indeed, it is improper to hold the plaintiffs were "sham" or "shills" simply because they could not afford to pay their own attomeys' fees, and such a finding is a de facto denial of the right of free access to the court.

Interostingly, while Defendants (as part of their distracting and irtelevant "David v. Goliath" strategy) were able to convince the Court that the third-party funding was somehow untowardo Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(F) provides otherwise. After 2ll, the State, Bar clearly contemplatos and blesses third partv funding - so long as the clients provide their informed written consent, which was unequivocally the case here. Thus, Defendants' efforts to penalize Plaintiffs because they cannot afford to litigate flies in the face of the Rules of Professional conduct.

In their Reply, Defendants next attempt to justify sneaking RBW and its principals Fred Bruning and Jean Paul Wardy into the Proposed Judgment. (Reply, 4:I-19.) But w6ether or not RBW, Bruning and Wardy rvere 'ostrangels to the instant lawsuit" (Reply, 4:8) is not the point. RBW, Brunins, and Wardv were not parties to the litisation. and to the extent the Court attempts to include them in the JudEment. the Judsment qill,he void a6 inlfio. (see Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4ft 604,615-616.)
Defendants also overreach by conflating RBW with Bruning and Wardy. It is bad enough thal Defendants are attempting to include RBW in the Judgment; but to include Bruning and Wardy in the Judgment in their individual capacities raises a host of additional corporate law, civil procedure, constitutional, and other issues that have not been, and cannot propetly be, addressed by the Court at this tirne' The Brand Defendants continue their incredible Reply by sumrnarily concluding that .,This action was clearly initiated to harass the Defendants and brought for an improper purpose - to chill the free speech rights of the Defendants'' (Reply, 4:19'20.)

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY 1 2
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
1aIJ
t4
15 16
T7
18 19
20 21
.)a
23 24
25 26
27 28
Again, there is no evidence of this; in fact, the evidenoe is to the contrary. If and when there is an analysis (as contemplated and fequired by People v. Hgdgecock (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 810) into whether the iawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, or gtoundless (presumably at the attorneys' fees phase of the case), the evidence will show it was not.

Indeed, the Declarations of Voisey and Travis submitted herewith demonstrate that this case was only filed after numerous hours of research into Defendants' political filings and the applicable law, and only a11tt Plaintiffs had a good faith, reasonable, well-grounded rationale for the lawsuit: requiring Defendants to comply with the Political Reform Act. (See Travis and Voisey Declarations, at paragraphs 12 & I0, respectively.)
The Brand Defendants again improperly cast aspersions toward Plaintiffs' counsel by alleging aviolation of ccP section 128.5. (R"ply, 4:2I- 5:12.) However, counsel did not violate Section 128.5; there is no evidence that he did; and Defendants, claim in this regard is offensive and off-base. Each of Plaintiffs' cout'f filings and arguments compliecl with Section 125.5. Plaintiffs' case, docutnents' and arguments were presented for ploper pu{poses; Plaintiffs' claims, defenses, and legal contentions were waryanted by existing law; Plaintiffb' allegations and other corfientions had ovidentiary support; and Plaintiffs' denials of factual contentions are wa.rranted on the evidence. Simply because the Court found in Defendants' favor does not mean this action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that Plaintiffs' counsel violated Section 128.5, and it is improper for Defendants to cast aspersions on plaintiffs and their counsel and to seek to mislead this Court into making such an elroneous finding.

The Brand Defendants' Reply is objectionable on the further grounds that the Brand Drefendants misstate fhe testimonv of Plaintiffs' expert" Ann Ravel. (Reply, 5:15-17,) While Ravel initially testified that nothing Defendants did was illegal, she unequivocally clarified and qualified that to moan: so long as Defendants' actions were properly repo-rted on their campaign reports (which they weren't). The official

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COI.IRT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY t
1 2
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
13 t4
i5
16 17
18 I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Reporter's Transcript, when obtained as part ofPlaintiffs' appeal, will demonstrate this, and Defendants ought to be ashamed of themselves for blatantly misrepresenting the record.

Further, it should be noted that by attempting to prevail on aspects of the case that have not yet been litigated - such as attorneys' fees - Defendants are not only completely'Jurnping the gun," but
(,'CRC'1.3.L702. Apparently, Defendants think they can file a CRC 3.1700(aX1) memorandurn of costs and sirnply insert an arnount for their attorneys' fees, and that this will force Plaintiffs to file a CRC 3.1700(b) motion to tax costs in order to oppose the fees. (Reply, 5:20-21.) However, this is not howthe discretionary attorneys' fees process works.

CRC 3.1702 provides for a process by which, after the Judgment is issued a notice of entry ofjudgment is served and tiled, attd amemorandum of costs is served and filed, prevailing parties may file a motion for attorneys' fees. Various issues will be raised during the attomeys' fees phase of the litigation, including whether Defenclants are entitled to fees at all; if so, the amount of the fees sought and whether those fees are reasonable; and who should pay such fees.

Finally, De&ndants' asse,rtions that RBW's fundine of Plaintiffs' case or t'
th
rted
- have
place.ip the Couft's Judsment. Although these findings might (at least theoretically, and even if incorrect and ultimately disagreed with by the appellate court) have a place in the Statement of Decision, they most certainly have no place in a Judgment. The Court should ultimately sign a precise, narrow and focused Judgrnent - whether on a the specific Judicial Counsel form or otherwise - and not fall prey to Defendants' efforts to invite this Court's elror by overloading the Jtrdgment with unwarranted and legally unjustified language.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLYTO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED JIJDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY 1 2
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 t4
15 t6
L7
18 19
20 21.
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 coNcLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs continue to object to Defendants' Proposed Judgment in its entirety, ask that it be rejected in its entirety, and request that Plaintiffs' proposed Judgment on the appropriate Judicial Council Form be tJre version adopted by this Court.

Respecffully Submitted :

Dated:January 2,201,9 B
Bradley W
The Sutton Law Firm,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARNETTE
TRAVIS ANd CHRIS VOISEY

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEFENDANTS'REPLY TO OBIECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AFTER COURT TRIAL; DECLARATIONS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY DECLARATION OF ARI{ETTE TRAVIS
I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
12 13
14 15
I6
17 18
I9
20 21
a.l
23 24
25 26
27 28

DECLARATION OF' ARNETTE TRAVIS

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RASPONSE
I, Arnette Travis, declare under penalty of perjury that:

1. I make this Declaration based on my own personal knowledge and, if asked to testify hereto, could and would competently do so.

2. Along with Chris Voisey, I am one of the Plaintiffs in aLos Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit entitled Amette Travis and Chris Voisey v. Bill Brand. et al.

3. I am very active and involved in Redondo Beach politics, local public issues, and the City's gfowth and development. For more thanZl years, I have been active in the North Redondo Beach Business Association. More recently, I co-founded, and am an active participate in, the Redondo Beach Police Department's Community Engagement Board, which meets every other month and addresses Redondo Beach community - police relations and related issues.

4. I am also a volunteer with the Beach Cities Health District and am an Arnbassador for the Blue Zones Project, which address public health and related issues.

I also have the honor of being selected as one of the few o'Outstanding Blue Zones Champions" as a result of my active role with health and quality-of-life issues in Redondo Beach. In addition, I serve on the Board of the League of Women Voters Beach Cities.

5. Since 2014have been a volunteer supporter of efforts to revitalize the King Harbor area of Redondo Beach. I opposed the so-called King Harbor CARE Act, which came to be known as Measure C, inthe March 2017 Redondo Beach election.

6. I oarefully followed the Yes on C and No on C campaigns, and I formed the opinion that the Yes on C campaign was being very deceptive on a number of levels, including with regard to what Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C., Bill Brand, Nils Nehrenheim and others were saying about Measure C and the Waterfront Project, as well as how the Defendants were disclosing, or not disclosing, various facts to the voters about the camPaign.
1 1
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
l2
13 l4
15 I6
t7
18 t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 7. I undertook this litigation, as a Plaintiff, because my own personal knowledge of Redondo Beach politics and, specifically,the Defendants' actions led me to believe (and I continue to believe) that the Defendants are not properly complying with campaign finance laws.

8. I spoke with my attorney in this case, Bradley W. Hertz, on multiple occasions prior to the filing of this case, and reviewed and revised the complaint before it was filed. I also provided my informed written consent, prior to the case complaint being fi1ed, that a third party - Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC ("RBW") - would be funding the litigation on my behalf.

9. I knew that I would be unable to afford the legal fees and costs associated with prosecuting a private attorney general lawsuit, and was pleased that RBW was willing to fund the litigation on my behalf.

10. From the beginning of the case through the present day,I provided regular input and guidance to Mr. Hertz and his associates regarding my preferred strategy, observations, and research. My attorneys and I met in person on several occasions, spoke by telephone and emailed regularly throughout the litigation, and I was integrally involved in the litigation. Mr. Voisey, my co-plaintiff, was also present at many of these meetings and participated in numerous telephone calls with our attomeys.

11. I strenuously disagree that the terms "shill" or "sham" apply to me or Mr.

Voisey, and find such terms offensive. We are very much our own people who value oru reputations, and we would never file a lawsuit unless we were well aware of, and involved in, the lawsuit being undertaken.

L2. I brought this case, and continued to pursue it through trial, in good faith after thoroughly discussing it with my attorneys. Indeed, I was only willing to file this action after my attorney had conducted numerous hours of research into the Defendants' filings and applicable law. I fuliy expected to prevail attrial, and expect that we will prevail on appeal. Given the strength of our case against the Defendants, I was extremely shocked and disappointed when the Court indicated that it was going to rule against us.
2 1
,
J
4 5
6 7
8 I
10 11
L2
13 t4

1.5 16
I7
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 2s
26 27
28 13. I have received no compensation from RBW or anyone else for litigating this action. I brought this action because I sincerely believe that the Defendants misled the voters of the City of Redondo Beach. My involvement in this case has taken substantial amounts of time away from my work and family so that I could devote time to participate fully as a Plaintiff, Worse, after I filed this action, I have been the subject of personal attacks and tlreats by the Defendarts. For example, shortly after initiating this action, I was apploached by Defendant Bill Brand where he personally threatened me for filing this lawsuit, dernanding to lflrow "Who was I to sue the Mayor?" Throughout this litigation, the Defendants have continued to malign and intimidate me through social media. Despite the Defendants' efforts to intimidate and harass me into dropping this aotion, I have oontinued to litigate this action on the public's behalf.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the fbregoing is true and corect.

Executed this 2nd day of January,2}l9 in Redondo Beach, California.

J

DECLARATION OF CHRIS VOISEY
1 2
a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
11 t2
13 14
15 16
t7
18 t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 TION OF'CHRIS V
rN suPPoRT OF PI.ATNTTFFS', RESPONSE
I, Chris Voisey, declare under penalty of perjury that:

1. I make this Declaration based on my own personal knowledge and, if asked to testify hereto, could and would competently do so.

2. Along with Ameue Travis, I am one of the Plaintiffs in a Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuit entitled Amette Travis and Chris Voisey v. Bill Brand. et al.

3. I am very active and involved in Redondo Beach politics, local public issues, and the City's growth and development. In early 2017, a member of the Redondo Beach City Council appointed me to serve on the City's General Plan Advisory Committee ("GPAC"). I have served on the GPAC, advising the City as to its General Plan, since the time of my appointment. Since 20I4,I have been a volunteer supporter of efforts to revitalize the King Harbor area of Redondo Beach. I opposed the so-called King Harbor CARE Act, which came to be known as Measure C, in the March2017 Redondo Beach election.

4. I carefirlly followed the Yes on C and No on C campaigns, and I formed the opinion that the Yes on C campaign was being very deceptive on a number of levels, including with regard to what Rescue Our Waterfront P.A,C., Bill Brand, Nils Nehrenheim and others were saying about Measure C and the Waterfront Project, as well as how the Defendants were disclosing, or not disclosing, various facts to the voters about the campaign.

5. I undertook this litigation, as a Plaintiff, because my own personal knowledge of Redondo Beach politics and, specifically, the Defendants' actions led me to believe (and I continue to believe) that the Defendants are not proper$ complying with campaign finance laws.

6. I spoke with my attomey in this case, Bradley W. Hettz, on multiple occasions prior to the filing of this case, and reviewed and revised the complaint before it was filed. I also provided my informed written consent, prior to the complaint being 1 1
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 14
15 T6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 filed, that a third party - Redondo Beach Waterfront ,LLC ("RBW") - would be funding the litigation on my behalf.

7. I knew that I would be unable to afford the legal fees and costs associated with prosecuting a private attomey general lawsuit, and was pleased that RBW was willing to fund the litigation on my behalf.

8. From the beginning of the case through the present day, I provided regular input and guidance to Mr. Hertz and his associates regarding my preferred strategy, observations, and research. My attorneys and I met in person on several occasions, spoke by telephone and emailed regularly throughout the litigation, and I was integrally involved in the litigation. Ms. Travis, my co-plaintiff, was also present at many of these meetings and participated in numerous telephone calls with our attorneys.

9. I strenuously disagree that the terms "shill" or "sham" apply to me or Ms.

Travis, and find such terms offensive, We are very much our own peopie who value our reputations, and we would never file a lawsuit unless we were well aware of, and involved in, the lawsuit being undertaken.

10. I brought this case, and continued to pursue it through trial, in good faith after thoroughly discussing it with my attorneys. Indeed, I was only willing to file this action after my attomey had conducted numerous hours of research into the Defendants' filings and applicable law. I fully expected to prevail attl'ial, and expect that we will prevail on appeal. Given the strength of our case against the Defendants,I was extremely shocked and disappointed when the Court indicated that it was going to rule against us.

11. I have received no compensation from RBW or anyone else for litigating this action. I brought this action because I sincerely believe that the Defendants misled the voters of the City of Redondo Beach. My involvement in this case has taken substantial amounts of time away from my work and family so that I could devote time to participate fully as a Plaintiff. Worse, after I filed this action, I have been the subject of personal attacks and threats by the Defendants. For example, Defendant and Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim has attempted to remove me as 2 I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
l2
13 t4
15 16
t7
18 t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 a member of GPAC multiple times in retaliation for my filing this lawsuit. this litigation, the Defendants have continued to malign and intimidate me through social media. Despite the Defendants' efforts to intimidate and harass me into dropping this action, I have continued to litigate this action on the public's behalf.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 2nd day of January,2019 in Redondo Beach, Califomia. 3 I
2 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 T2
13 t4
15 16
17 18
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a parl.y to the within action. My business address is 22815 Ventura Boulevard, # 405, Los Angeles, CA9t364, and my email and electronic service address is bhertz@a ampai gnl awyers. com^
On Jaruary 2,2019,I served true and correct copies of the following document:

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO BRAND DEX'ENDANTS' REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED JUDGMENT AX'TER COURT TRIAL;

DECLARATIONS OF'ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY
on the following parties via electronic service as required bby Calif:omia Rule of Court 2-251, by electronically transmitting said docunent to the persons listed below:

Stevan Colin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants BILL BRAND; Gabriel & Associates BILLBRAND FORMAYOR2017; and
801 Pacific Avenue LINDA MOFFAT
Long Beaoh, CA 90813
Electronic S ervice Addless : s tevan. co I in @gabri ei-lA-w. corr Bobak Nayebdadash, Esq. Attomey for Defendants RESCUE OUR 136 Main Street, # A WATERFRONT P.A.C. and WAYNE
El Segundo, CA90245 CRAIG
Electronic Service Address: [email protected]
Jeanne L. Zimmer, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant
Carlson & MesserLLP NILS NEHRENHEIM
5901 West Century Blvd., Ste. 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Electronic Service Addres s : zimmerj @cmtlaw, corn
_X__ ffIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY) I electronically transmitted the document to counsel listed above at the email address listed above, which I lcrow to be the correct email address of the attorney, based on regular email corespondence tlu'oughout this litigation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and con'ect,
Executed on January 2,2019 in Los Angeles, Califomia'
V/
VJ

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
8 9
10 12
13 14
15 16
ARNETTE TRAVIS and CHRIS VOISEY
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR
2017; LINDA MOFFAT; RESCUE OUR
WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE
CRAIG; MARTIN HOLMES; NILS
NEHRENHEIM; and DOES 1-25,
Defendants.

CASE NO. BC 665330
[PROPOSED|
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS
FEES, NON-C.C.P. 1033.5 COSTS and
C.C.P. 1033.5 COSTS
Hearing Date: June 27, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept.: 55
Judge: Honorable Malcolm H. Mackey
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
On June 27, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 55 ofthe above entitled Court, located at 111 N.

Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, Defendants BILL BRAND, BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017, LINDA MOFFAT, RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C., WAYNE CRAIG and NILS NEHRENEHEIM's Motions For Attorneys'ees and non-C.C.P. section 1033.5 costs came on for hearing before the Honorable Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge Presiding.

Plaintiffs, ARNETTE TRAVIS and CHRIS VOISEY, appeared by Bradley W. Hertz, Esq. of The Sutton Law firm; Defendants, BILL BRAND, BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017, and LINDA MOFFAT appeared by Stevan Colin, Esq. of Gabriel k Associates; Defendant, NILS NEHRENHEIM, appeared by Jeanne L. Zimmer of Carlson & Messer; Defendants, WAYNE CRAIG and RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C. appeared by Bobak Nayebdadash, Esq. of the Law Offices of Bobak Nayebdadash.
(OOII7897,1)
[paoposso] osoea
10 12
13 14
15 16
17 19
20 After considering the motions, oppositions and replies thereto, the court files, and arguments by counsel, the Court grants all motions and rules as follows:

1. The Defendants are deemed the prevailing parties in this action;

2. The Defendants are awarded attorneys fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 against all Plaintiffs as Defendants'uccessful defense ofthe lawsuit has resulted in the enforceinent of an important right affecting the public interest which has been conferred on the general public by the Defendants, the award is appropriate, and will not be paid out by a public entity;

3. The instant lawsuit filed against the Defendants was frivolous, unreasonable and groundless and Plaintiffs were found to be shills for Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC;

4. All Defendants acted in good faith;

5. Defendant, Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C., was found to be a general purpose committee;

6. Defendants, Bill Brand and Nils Nehrenheim, did not control or significantly influence the actions of Defendant, Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C4

7. The Court found that the Plaintiffs prosecuted their private enforcement action in order to punish the Defendants for their free speech and their public support to guard against the 525,000 square feet CenterCal project, and the people of Redondo Beach voted with the Defendants;

8. The Court also awards attorneys fees and costs to the Defendants pursuant to Government Code sections 91003.
21 22
23 The Court further awards attorneys'ees and costs to Defendants as follows:

ATTORNEYS FEES
TO BILL BRAND/BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017/
24 LINDA MOFFAT'S COUNSEL, STEVAN COLIN $352,050.00.
25 26
27 TO NILS NEHRENHEIM'S COUNSEL,
JEANNE L. ZIMMER $367,900.00
28 i00117897.11
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 TO RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C/WAYNE CRAIG'S
COUNSEL, BOBAK NAYEBDASDASH $ 142.786.60
TOTAL: $862,736.60
10 NON-C.C.P. SECTION 1033.5 COSTS
TO BILL BRAND/BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017

TO NILS NEHRENHEIM
C.C.P. SECTION 1033.5 COSTS (Der costs bills)
BILL BRAND/BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017

TO NILS NEHRENHEIM
$ 645.70
$ 1.303.92
TOTAL: $ 1,949.62
$ 16,125. 84
$ 8,551.67
12 13
TO RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C/WAYNE CRAIG $ 7 532.87
TOTAL: $ 32,210.38
14 TOTAL: $ 896,896.60
15 16
17 The above attorneys'ees and costs are awarded against Plaintiffs, ARNETTE TRAVIS and CHRIS VOISEY, jointly and severally, pursuant to C.C.P. section 1021.5 and Government Code section 91003.
18 19
20 21
The Court further orders that Plaintiffs post bond within Government Code section 91012, in the total amounts stated above.

DATED:
days, pursuant to
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 HON. MALCOLM H. MACKEY

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
)00))7897,1)
[PROPOSED] ORDER

PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
3 At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 801 Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90813.
5 On July 2, 2019, I served the documents described as:
6 [Proposcdj Order Re: Motions For Attorneys Fees, Non-C.C.P. 1033.5 Costs and C.C.P. 1033.5 Costs
7 on the interested parties in this action as listed on the attached mailing list. 8 X By Regular Mail
9 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach, California in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion ofthe party 11 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
12 By Facsimile
13 I caused said documents to be transmitted by facsimile to the facsimile machine telephone numbers as listed on the attached service list and caused the machine to print a properly issued 14 transmission reports.

X By Electronic Service
16 I caused the documents to be sent to the interested parties at the electronic service addresses as listed on the attached service list.
17 By Personal Service
18 I caused the above-mentioned documents to be personally hand-delivered to the addressee as listed on the attached service list.
19 By United States Postal Service-Express Mail
I caused said envelope(s) to be deposited in the United States Express Mail box in Long Beach, California, to be delivered by June 21, 2019.
21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2019, at Long Beach, California. 23 24
25 Stevan Colin
26 27
28

PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVICE LIST
Via E-Mail
3 Bradley W. Hertz, Esq.

The Sutton Law Firm
22815 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
Los Angeles, CA 91364
5 Email: Bhertz&campa~injawTers.cpm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey
Via E-Mail:

Bobak R. Nayebdadash, Esq.
136 Main Street, Suite A
8 El Segundo, CA 90245
Email: [email protected]
9 Attorneys for Defendants,
Wayne Craig and Rescue Our Waterfront
10 12
13 Via E-Mail:

Jeanne L. Zimmer, Esq.

Carlson & Messer LLP
5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Email: Zimmerj crntlaw.corn
Attorneys for Defendant,
Nils Nehrenheim
14 15
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 27
28

PROOF OF SERVICE

021318.txt

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT

ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY, )
)

PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. ) NO. BC 665330
)
BILL BRAND; BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017;) VOLUME I
LINDA MOFFATT; RESCUE OUR ) DEPOSITION OF
WATERFRONT P.A.C.; WAYNE CRAIG; ) CHRISTOPHER VOISEY
MARTIN HOLMES; NILS NEHRENHEIM, )
AND DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________)
DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
TIME: 10:16 A.M. - 3:14 P.M.

TAKEN AT: 5901 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD
SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045
REPORTER: LAURA D. GUERRERO, CSR NO. 7684

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 FOR PLAINTIFFS ARNETTE TRAVIS AND CHRIS VOISEY:
4 THE SUTTON LAW FIRM
BY: BRADLEY W. HERTZ
5 ATTORNEY AT LAW
22815 VENTURA BOULEVARD
6 SUITE 405
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 91364
7 (818) 593-2949
8 9 FOR DEFENDANTS BILL BRAND, BILL BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017, AND LINDA MOFFAT:
10 GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES
11 BY: STEVAN COLIN

ATTORNEY AT LAW
12 801 PACIFIC AVENUE
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90813
13 (562) 436-9292
14 15 FOR DEFENDANT NILS NEHRENHEIM:
16 CARLSON & MESSER LLP
BY: JEANNE L. ZIMMER

021318.txt
17 ATTORNEY AT LAW
5901 CENTURY BOULEVARD
18 SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045
19 (310) 242-2212
20 21 FOR DEFENDANTS WAYNE CRAIG AND RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT:
22 BRN LEGAL
BY: BOBAK NAYEBDADASH
23 ATTORNEY AT LAW
136 MAIN STREET
24 SUITE A
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245
25 (310) 972-0972
2 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
2 3 ALSO PRESENT:
4 WAYNE CRAIG

NILS NEHRENHEIM
5 6
7 8
9 10
11

021318.txt
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
3 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 I N D E X
2 VOLUME I
3 4 WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
5 CHRISTOPHER VOISEY BY MR. COLIN 6

021318.txt
6 BY MR. COLIN (CONTINUED) 91
7 8 E X H I B I T S
9 DEFENDANTS' FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE
10 1 THIRD NOTICE OF TAKING 14

DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF
11 CHRIS VOISEY AND DEMAND FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT
12 DEPOSITION; 16 PAGES
13 2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 20

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO COMPEL
14 COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA'S
POLITICAL REFORM ACT; 12 PAGES
15 3 LETTER DATED MARCH 5, 2015 56
16 4 PHOTOGRAPHS; 2 PAGES 62
17 5 LETTER DATED JULY 30, 2014; 76
18 2 PAGES
19 6 REDONDO UNITED FACEBOOK PAGE 93
20 7 REDONDO BEACH VOICES FOR 96

WATERFRONT VITALITY FACEBOOK
21 PAGE
22 8 THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK & 111

MARKETPLACE POSTING, DATED
23 FEBRUARY 2
24 9 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF 130
"THE BEACH REPORTER"
25 4

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 I N D E X
2 VOLUME I
3 4 E X H I B I T S
5 PLAINTIFFS' FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE
6 10 PLAINTIFF CHRIS VOISEY'S 164

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
7 THIRD NOTICE OF TAKING

DEPOSITION AND DEMAND FOR
8 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT
DEPOSITION; 31 PAGES
9 10
11 QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
12 PAGE LINE
13 9 14
14 129 9
15 129 18
16 133 2
17 133 17
18 135 4
19 158 15
20 159 21
21 160 22
22 161 2
23 161 6
24 161 10

021318.txt
25 5

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
2 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018, 10:16 A.M.
3 VOLUME I
4 * * *
5 6 CHRISTOPHER VOISEY,
7 THE WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN
8 FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND
9 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
10 11 EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. COLIN:
13 Q. GOOD MORNING. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR
14 THE RECORD, PLEASE?
15 A. CHRISTOPHER VOISEY.
16 Q. OKAY. MR. VOISEY, YOU'RE HERE THIS MORNING
17 BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN COMPELLED TO ATTEND THIS DEPOSITION 18 IN CONNECTION WITH A LAWSUIT THAT YOU AND ARNETTE TRAVIS

021318.txt
19 FILED AGAINST MY CLIENTS, BILL BRAND, BRAND FOR MAYOR 20 2017, AND LINDA MOFFAT.
21 DO YOU KNOW LINDA MOFFAT, BY ANY CHANCE?
22 A. I DO NOT.
23 Q. HAVE YOU EVER MET HER?
24 A. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
25 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, MY CLIENTS ARE NOT THE ONLY
6 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 ONES THAT YOU HAVE SUED IN THIS ACTION. YOU'VE ALSO
2 NAMED RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT, A POLITICAL ACTION
3 COMMITTEE, WAYNE CRAIG, MARTIN HOLMES, AND
4 NILS NEHRENHEIM.
5 DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW WAYNE CRAIG?
6 A. NO.
7 Q. DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW MARTIN HOLMES?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS IN PERSON
10 WITH WAYNE CRAIG?
11 A. NOT THAT I'VE EVER RECALLED. NOTHING OF
12 SUBSTANCE.
13 Q. OKAY. ANYTHING ONLINE OR VIA SOCIAL MEDIA

021318.txt
14 WITH HIM?
15 A. NOT THAT I RECALL.
16 Q. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT MARTIN HOLMES, HAVE YOU EVER
17 SPOKEN WITH HIM DIRECTLY, PERSONALLY?
18 A. NO.
19 Q. HAVE YOU EVER ENGAGED IN ANY SOCIAL MEDIA
20 CONVERSATIONS OR ANY INTERACTIONS WITH HIM?
21 A. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
22 MR. HERTZ: MAY I JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD
23 THAT MARTIN HOLMES HAS BEEN DISMISSED --
24 MR. COLIN: RIGHT.
25 MR. HERTZ: -- WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
7 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. BY MR. COLIN: RIGHT. OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO
2 MR. NEHRENHEIM, WHO YOU HAVE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT, HAVE 3 YOU EVER SPOKEN WITH HIM DIRECTLY?
4 A. NOTHING IN A CONVERSATION. IF THERE WAS
5 ANY -- "HEY," WORDS IN PASSING, LIKE "HELLO" TYPE OF
6 WORDS --
7 Q. OKAY.

021318.txt
8 A. -- THAT WOULD BE ALL THAT I CAN RECALL.
9 Q. HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN ANY INTERACTION WITH HIM
10 ON SOCIAL MEDIA?
11 A. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
12 Q. OKAY. NOW, THE COURT REPORTER, WHO IS SITTING
13 TO YOUR IMMEDIATE RIGHT, IS GOING TO BE TAKING DOWN ALL 14 OF THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GIVE HERE TODAY; AND SHE'S 15 ADMINISTERED AN OATH TO YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH. IT'S THE 16 SAME OATH THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO YOU IF YOU WERE
17 TESTIFYING IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JURY.
18 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
19 A. YES, YEAH.
20 Q. AND EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN INFORMAL
21 SURROUNDINGS THIS MORNING IN MS. ZIMMER'S CONFERENCE 22 ROOM, THIS IS A LEGAL PROCEEDING AND THE PENALTIES FOR 23 PERJURY, LYING UNDER OATH, APPLY TO THIS PROCEEDING. 24 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
25 A. YES.
8 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU TALKED TO ARNETTE TRAVIS SINCE
2 SHE GAVE HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY YESTERDAY IN THIS

021318.txt
3 MATTER?
4 A. I HAVE NOT.
5 Q. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE TO
6 ARNETTE TRAVIS, ABSENT YOUR ATTORNEY BEING PRESENT?
7 WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE WITH HER?
8 A. FRIDAY.
9 Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU TALK TO HER ABOUT THIS
10 LAWSUIT?
11 A. I JUST CONFIRMED THAT I'M ON TUESDAY; SHE'S ON
12 MONDAY; AND EVERYTHING -- SHE WAS HEALTHY AND GOOD TO 13 GO.
14 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ARNETTE TRAVIS IN
15 THE LAST YEAR HAS BEEN UNDER ANY PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT? 16 MR. HERTZ: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT AS
17 TO -- ON BEHALF OF PRIVACY RIGHTS OF ARNETTE TRAVIS AND 18 INSTRUCT THE WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER. I THINK THAT'S
19 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
20 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. THE DEPOSITION
21 PROCEEDING HAS A NUMBER OF RULES THAT APPLY TO IT, AND 22 YOU -- YOU MAY HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOUR 23 ATTORNEY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE THIS MORNING 24 AND WHAT THE RULES ARE THAT APPLY; BUT I'M GOING TO GO 25 THROUGH THEM AGAIN SO THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING 9

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 OF WHAT'S EXPECTED OF YOU AND WHAT THE RULES ARE GOING 2 TO BE.
3 YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL I FINISH
4 ASKING MY QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU RESPOND; AND LIKEWISE, 5 I'M GOING TO WAIT UNTIL YOU FINISH GIVING ME A COMPLETE 6 ANSWER BEFORE I ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. IT'S
7 IMPORTANT THAT WE SPEAK ONE PERSON AT A TIME BECAUSE THE 8 REPORTER IS GOING TO BE TAKING DOWN EVERYTHING THAT'S 9 SAID IN THIS ROOM THIS MORNING, ANYTHING THAT I SAY,
10 ANYTHING YOUR ATTORNEY SAYS, OR ANYTHING THAT'S SAID BY 11 THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THIS -- IN THIS ROOM.
12 AND AFTER WE COMPLETE THE DEPOSITION AND IN A
13 FEW WEEKS, SHE'S GOING TO PREPARE A TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT 14 YOU SAID HERE THIS MORNING, AND THAT TRANSCRIPT IS GOING 15 TO BE FORWARDED TO YOUR ATTORNEY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO 16 HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, TO READ IT, TO MAKE 17 ANY CHANGES TO IT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT YOU 18 SIGN IT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. OKAY? AND,
19 THEREAFTER, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT YOUR ATTORNEY ADVISE 20 US OF ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE MADE TO

021318.txt
21 IT.
22 IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO GIVE YOUR BEST
23 TESTIMONY THIS MORNING BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE ANY MATERIAL 24 CHANGES FROM WHAT YOU GIVE US TODAY IN THIS DEPOSITION, 25 I OR ANY OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE CAN COMMENT UPON 10 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THOSE CHANGES AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR ANY PROCEEDINGS IN 2 THIS MATTER.
3 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
4 A. YES.
5 Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY DOCUMENTS TO
6 PREPARE FOR TODAY'S DEPOSITION?
7 A. ONLY REREAD THE -- THE COMPLAINT JUST TO BE
8 FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WAS ON THERE.
9 Q. OKAY. THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT?
10 A. YEAH.
11 Q. DID YOU REVIEW THAT COMPLAINT BEFORE YOU
12 SIGNED ON THE VERIFICATION FORM THAT'S ATTACHED TO IT? 13 A. OH, YES. IN FACT, I THINK THERE WAS ONE LINE
14 MY NAME WAS SPELLED WRONG, IF I REMEMBER, IF THIS WAS 15 THE RIGHT DOCUMENT.

021318.txt
16 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SIGNED THE VERIFICATION,
17 WAS ARNETTE TRAVIS PRESENT WITH YOU?
18 A. YES.
19 Q. OKAY. AND WHERE DID YOU SIGN THE VERIFICATION
20 TO THIS COMPLAINT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO?
21 A. I BELIEVE I DID IT AT MY HOUSE.
22 Q. AND SHE WAS AT YOUR HOME?
23 A. YES.
24 Q. OKAY. WAS ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT WHEN YOU
25 SIGNED THE VERIFICATION?
11 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. MR. --
2 MR. HERTZ: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE EXTENT
3 IT MAY INVADE THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
4 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
5 THE WITNESS: YEAH. I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY
6 ATTORNEY WAS THERE.
7 Q. BY MR. COLIN: MR. HERTZ?
8 A. YES.
9 Q. OKAY. SO BESIDES YOU, ARNETTE TRAVIS AND

021318.txt
10 MR. HERTZ, WAS ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT AT YOUR HOME WHEN 11 YOU SIGNED THE VERIFICATION TO THE COMPLAINT?
12 A. I THINK HE OBJECTED TO THE -- I DON'T BELIEVE
13 ANYBODY ELSE WAS THERE.
14 MR. HERTZ: DOES IT INCLUDE A CAT?
15 THE WITNESS: FOUR.
16 Q. BY MR. COLIN: WELL, THAT WOULD -- WELL, IF
17 YOU'RE DESCRIBING FRED BRUNING AS A CAT, YEAH. WAS
18 THERE A CAT THERE?
19 A. I WILL DIRECTLY STATE THAT FRED BRUNING WAS
20 NOT THERE.
21 Q. OKAY. WAS JEAN PAUL WARDY THERE?
22 A. NO; BUT --
23 Q. WAS ANY --
24 A. -- I'M GOING TO STOP AT THAT. MY APOLOGIES
25 FOR INTERRUPTING.
12 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY. WAS ANYBODY THERE WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE
2 OF CENTERCAL?
3 A. NO, NO.
4 Q. ALSO, LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH THE ADMONITIONS.

021318.txt
5 IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SPEAK ONE PERSON AT A TIME SO SHE 6 GETS EVERYTHING DOWN. DURING THE DEPOSITION, DON'T MAKE 7 ANY PHYSICAL GESTURES TO INDICATE A RESPONSE. FOR
8 EXAMPLE, PEOPLE MIGHT SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS. THEY MAY 9 NOD THEIR HEAD. THEY MAKE SHAKE THEIR HEARD TO INDICATE 10 AN "I DON'T KNOW," A "NO," A "YES." THE COURT REPORTER 11 CAN'T INTERPRET WHAT YOU MEAN BY THOSE GESTURES, SO IT'S 12 IMPORTANT THAT EVERYTHING BE VERBAL AND THAT IT BE LOUD 13 ENOUGH FOR HER TO HEAR AND TO TAKE DOWN ON THE
14 TRANSCRIPTION MACHINE SHE'S USING. OKAY?
15 HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY ABOUT TODAY'S
16 DEPOSITION OTHER THAN YOUR ATTORNEY OR ANY OF HIS
17 ASSOCIATES IN HIS OFFICE?
18 A. THE FACT THAT I WAS COMING HERE WITH MY --
19 WITH MY WIFE, OF COURSE --
20 Q. OKAY.
21 A. -- AND THAT WOULD BE IT.
22 Q. OKAY. IN THE LAST 30 DAYS, YOU'VE NOT SPOKEN
23 TO ANYBODY ASSOCIATED WITH CENTERCAL OR THE
24 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE?
25 A. ABOUT THIS, NO.
13 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 Q. HAVE YOU EVER TALKED ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT WITH
2 MICKEY MARRAFFINO?
3 A. NO, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SPECIFICALLY
4 TALKED ABOUT IT WITH HER.
5 Q. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ARNETTE TRAVIS TALKING TO
6 MICKEY MARRAFFINO ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT?
7 A. I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT, NO.
8 Q. OKAY. LET ME GO AHEAD AND -- I'M GOING TO
9 MARK AS EXHIBIT 1 -- THIS IS THE "THIRD NOTICE OF TAKING 10 DEPOSITION OF CHRISTOPHER VOISEY," AND I'M GOING TO ASK 11 YOU TO LOOK AT THAT -- LET ME GIVE IT TO YOUR ATTORNEY 12 FIRST. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
13 MR. HERTZ: OKAY. I'VE REVIEWED IT.
14 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
15 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
16 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 1 FOR
17 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
18 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. MR. VOISEY, GO AHEAD AND
19 LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE
20 FINISHED.
21 A. OKAY.
22 Q. BEFORE TODAY'S DEPOSITION, HAD YOU SEEN THAT

021318.txt
23 DOCUMENT?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. AND IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DOCUMENT, DID YOU
14 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 UNDERTAKE ANY KIND OF A SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS THAT 2 WERE REQUESTED TO BE PRODUCED THIS MORNING?
3 A. YES. I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY ATTORNEY AND WHAT
4 WAS RELEVANT TO BE PROVIDED.
5 Q. MY QUESTION IS: DID YOU UNDERTAKE A SEARCH
6 FOR THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REQUESTED IN THIS DEPOSITION 7 NOTICE?
8 A. YES.
9 Q. OKAY. AND ARE YOU PRODUCING ANY DOCUMENTS
10 HERE THIS MORNING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DEPOSITION 11 NOTICE?
12 A. I AM NOT ADDING ANY DOCUMENTS TO THIS THAT HAS
13 NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO MY ATTORNEY.
14 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU PRODUCING ANYTHING HERE THIS
15 MORNING?
16 A. I JUST SAID I AM NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING NEW
17 THIS MORNING.

021318.txt
18 Q. OKAY.
19 MR. HERTZ: AND I'LL JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD
20 WE PRODUCED ABOUT A THOUSAND PAGES IN RESPONSE TO AN 21 EARLIER DOCUMENT REQUEST, AND THEN SUPPLEMENTED THAT IN 22 CONNECTION WITH MR. VOISEY'S DRIVER'S LICENSE WITH LESS 23 REDACTION THAN HAD EARLIER BEEN ON THE DRIVER'S LICENSE 24 TO SHOW RESIDENCY.
25 MS. ZIMMER: CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION AT THIS
15 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 POINT? THE BINDER THAT YOU BROUGHT TO THE DEPOS FOR THE 2 DEFENDANTS, IS THAT THE -- EVERYTHING THAT YOU PRODUCED, 3 IS THAT WHAT WAS IN THOSE BINDERS? THAT WAS ALL THAT
4 WAS PRODUCED?
5 MR. HERTZ: THE BINDERS INCLUDED THE DOCUMENT
6 PRODUCTION, EXCEPT FOR, I THINK, THE LAST ITERATION OF 7 THE DRIVER'S LICENSE THAT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A COVER
8 LETTER.
9 MS. ZIMMER: OKAY.
10 MR. HERTZ: AND THEN THE BINDER ALREADY
11 INCLUDED, OF COURSE, PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY.

021318.txt
12 MS. ZIMMER: OKAY.
13 MR. HERTZ: SO YES, EVERYTHING IN THAT
14 THOUSAND-PAGE OR SO DOCUMENT PRODUCTION WAS INCLUDED IN 15 THE BINDER.
16 MS. ZIMMER: RIGHT, THANK YOU.
17 MR. HERTZ: SURE.
18 Q. BY MR. COLIN: NOW, MR. VOISEY, YOU FILED THIS
19 COMPLAINT AGAINST MY CLIENTS, AND YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD ME 20 THAT YOU SIGNED THE VERIFICATION TO THE COMPLAINT.
21 WHEN DID YOU FIRST COME TO KNOW BILL BRAND?
22 A. WELL, I DON'T KNOW BILL BRAND; BUT AS THE
23 NAME, I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT PROBABLY DATING BACK TO 2- -- 24 MID-2000'S.
25 Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY "THE MID-2000'S," CAN YOU
16 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 NARROW IT DOWN? 2005? 2006?
2 A. UNFORTUNATELY, I COULDN'T. I WOULD HAVE TO
3 TAKE A LOOK AT WHEN HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE HEART OF 4 THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT I COULD TELL YOU.
5 Q. AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO LOOK FOR IN ORDER
6 TO DETERMINE WHEN YOU FIRST CAME TO KNOW BILL BRAND?

021318.txt
7 A. JUST WHEN THE ARTICLES WERE BEING PUBLISHED IN
8 THE "DAILY BREEZE" AND OTHER LOCAL PAPERS ABOUT HIS
9 STANCE AND OTHERS REGARDING THE -- THE HEART OF THE CITY 10 PROJECT PROPOSAL.
11 Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY PERSONAL
12 CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. BRAND SINCE YOU FIRST BECAME
13 AWARE OF HIM IN REDONDO BEACH BEING INVOLVED IN THE
14 HEART OF THE CITY PLAN?
15 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER HAVE.
16 Q. OKAY.
17 A. JUST A "HELLO," A COURTESY "HELLO."
18 Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED WITH HIM THE
19 CENTERCAL PROPERTIES PROJECT THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR THE 20 WATERFRONT?
21 A. NOT ON A ONE-OR-ONE OR ANYTHING IN A SPECIFIC
22 GROUP; BUT IF HE WAS PRESENT FOR SOMETHING, I COULDN'T 23 TELL YOU.
24 Q. HAVE YOU EVER MADE ANY APPEARANCES AT THE
25 REDONDO BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHERE YOU DIRECTED 17 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 ANY COMMENTS TO HIM?
2 A. NOT TO HIM SPECIFICALLY --
3 Q. WELL --
4 A. -- THAT I KNOW OF.
5 Q. -- TO HIM, IN GENERAL?
6 A. NO. I -- MOST OF MY -- FROM EVERYTHING I
7 RECALL, MY COMMENTS WERE JUST IN MY SUPPORT AND MOVING 8 THIS FORWARD AND NOT STALLING.
9 Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY "MOVING THIS FORWARD AND NOT
10 STALLING," WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
11 A. CHANGES TO THE WATERFRONT.
12 Q. LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
13 VERIFIED COMPLAINT THAT YOUR ATTORNEY FILED ON YOUR
14 BEHALF.
15 WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THAT COMPLAINT?
16 A. READ IT ON SATURDAY.
17 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS?
18 A. UH-HUH.
19 Q. ALL RIGHT.
20 MS. ZIMMER: IS THAT A "YES"?
21 MR. HERTZ: YEAH. WHEN YOU SAY "UH-HUH," IT'S
22 REAL IMPORTANT TO SAY "YES."
23 THE WITNESS: YOU DON'T HAVE AN "UH-HUH"?
24 "YES."

021318.txt
25 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ALL RIGHT. IN THE COMPLAINT,
18 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 AT PARAGRAPH 3 YOU -- YOU ALLEGE THAT:
2 "PLAINTIFFS ARNETTE TRAVIS AND
3 CHRIS VOISEY ARE RESIDENTS,
4 ELECTORS AND VOTERS OF THE CITY OF
5 REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AND HAVE
6 STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION
7 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
8 SECTION 91003."
9 DID YOU VOTE IN THE MARCH 7, 2017 ELECTION?
10 A. I DID.
11 Q. AND ARE YOU CURRENTLY A RESIDENT OF
12 REDONDO BEACH?
13 A. I AM.
14 Q. AND WHAT'S YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS WHERE YOU
15 VOTED FROM?
16 MR. HERTZ: I'M GOING TO JUST INSTRUCT THE
17 WITNESS NOT TO SAY THE STREET NUMBER AND -- BUT DO SAY 18 THE STREET NAME AND CITY AND ZIP CODE -- FOR PRIVACY AND 19 SECURITY REASONS.

021318.txt
20 THE WITNESS: SAPPHIRE STREET, REDONDO BEACH,
21 CALIFORNIA 90277.
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED ON
23 SAPPHIRE STREET?
24 A. FIVE YEARS NOW.
25 MR. HERTZ: DID YOU WANT THE WITNESS TO HAVE A
19 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN FRONT OF HIM FOR THESE
2 QUESTIONS? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CURRENTLY.
3 MR. COLIN: NO. HE SAID HE READ IT ON
4 SATURDAY.
5 MR. HERTZ: RIGHT. BUT, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE
6 QUOTING FROM IT, I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WANT HIM TO HAVE IT 7 IN FRONT OF HIM.
8 MR. COLIN: OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MARK
9 THIS AS EXHIBIT 2.
10 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
11 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
12 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 2 FOR
13 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)

021318.txt
14 Q. BY MR. COLIN: I'LL HAND THAT TO YOU,
15 MR. VOISEY, AND IF YOU COULD --
16 A. THANK YOU.
17 Q. -- TURN TO PARAGRAPH 4. THIS IS ON PAGE 3.
18 YOU ALLEGE:
19 "DEFENDANT BILL BRAND IS AN
20 INDIVIDUAL RESIDING IN THE CITY OF
21 REDONDO BEACH, AND AT ALL RELEVANT
22 TIMES WAS A CANDIDATE FOR
23 REDONDO BEACH MAYOR, WAS THE
24 CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF DEFENDANT
25 BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017," COMMA, "WAS
20 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF RESCUE
2 OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C., AND HAD A
3 LEGAL OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH ALL
4 APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE
5 POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND RELATED
6 REGULATIONS."
7 TELL ME WHAT INFORMATION YOU POSSESS THAT
8 TELLS YOU THAT BILL BRAND WAS A CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF

021318.txt
9 RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C.
10 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND
11 CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION AS TO THE TERM "CONTROLLING 12 CANDIDATE."
13 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
14 THE WITNESS: IF I CAN JUST SAY THAT HIS
15 CAMPAIGN WAS CONSTANTLY SENDING MAILERS THAT HAD SHARED 16 INFORMATION, SAME PHOTOS. ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN
17 PRODUCED AND GIVEN TO MY ATTORNEY AS PART OF HIS PACKAGE 18 THAT HE DELIVERED, AND WE CONSTANTLY SAW HIM
19 COORDINATING AND WORKING WITH -- WELL, IN THIS CASE, 20 JUST THE P.A.C., WHICH BECAME A P.A.C. DURING THE
21 CAMPAIGN, I BELIEVE; AND -- AND HIS MAILERS AND E-MAILS 22 AND -- AND ACTUAL SUPPORT IN DIRECTING PEOPLE ON HIS 23 REGULAR E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT OUT.
24 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. WERE YOU THE RECIPIENT
25 OF ANY OF THOSE E-MAILS?
21 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. IN THE BEGINNING, I WAS.
2 Q. OKAY.

021318.txt
3 A. AT LEAST I WAS RECEIVING THEM. I DON'T KNOW
4 IF IT WAS KNOWN TO BE SENT TO ME.
5 Q. OKAY. WELL, TO WHAT E-MAIL ADDRESS WERE THEY
6 BEING SENT?
7 A. I HONESTLY COULD NOT TELL YOU.
8 Q. WELL, YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE
9 RECEIVING HIS E-MAILS; SO WHAT E-MAIL ADDRESS WERE YOU 10 RECEIVING THEM, THEN?
11 A. I RUN ABOUT 40 DOMAINS. I DON'T KNOW WHICH
12 ONE, AND ALL OF THEM DO SEND TO ME.
13 Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY "ALL OF THEM DO SEND TO YOU,"
14 WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
15 A. ALL OF THE DOMAIN NAMES.
16 Q. OKAY. AND SO, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU
17 THINK THAT YOU STILL HAVE SOME OF THE E-MAILS THAT WERE 18 SENT TO YOU BY -- BY BILL BRAND?
19 A. IT IS POSSIBLE; HOWEVER, I DID HAVE MY HARD
20 DRIVE REPLACED AND ERASED BY APPLE, WHICH I HAVE A
21 VERIFIABLE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY DID THAT; 22 AND, UNFORTUNATELY, IT DID HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT 23 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ARCHIVED.
24 Q. AND WHEN WAS -- AND WHEN WAS THE HARD DRIVE
25 ERASED BY APPLE?
22

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. IN JANUARY.
2 Q. OF WHAT YEAR?
3 A. THIS YEAR, 2017.
4 Q. BEFORE JANUARY OF 2017, HAD YOU --
5 MS. ZIMMER: IT'S 2018.
6 THE WITNESS: OR "2018." THANK YOU.
7 Q. BY MR. COLIN: BEFORE JANUARY OF 2018, HAD YOU
8 PRINTED ANY OF THOSE E-MAILS THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM
9 BILL BRAND?
10 A. I DON'T PRINT. I'M IN THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
11 AND I BELIEVE IN THE SAVING OF PAPER.
12 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU FILED THIS LAWSUIT, DID YOU
13 NOT?
14 A. YES, AND --
15 Q. AND YOU WERE REQUESTED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN
16 DOCUMENTS, WERE YOU NOT?
17 A. YES.
18 Q. OKAY. AND YOU DIDN'T PRODUCE ANY OF THOSE
19 E-MAILS, DID YOU?
20 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; THE DOCUMENTS SPEAK FOR
21 THEMSELVES.

021318.txt
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF
23 ANY E-MAILS THAT WERE REQUESTED IN YOUR RESPONSE TO THE 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION. SO DID YOU NOT HAVE THEM, OR 25 DID YOU NOT DECIDE TO PRINT THEM?
23 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. E-MAILS WERE PRODUCED, AND THEY WERE GIVEN TO
2 YOU, AND I WASN'T GOING TO DUPLICATE E-MAILS THAT WERE 3 ALREADY IN THERE.
4 Q. ALL RIGHT. THEY WERE PRODUCED TO YOUR
5 ATTORNEY?
6 A. YES. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ALL OF THEM
7 HAVE BEEN.
8 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU SAID THAT -- THAT
9 MR. BRAND'S CAMPAIGN SENT SHARED INFORMATION. OKAY.
10 WHAT WAS -- WHO WERE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAID
11 HE -- HIS CAMPAIGN SENT SHARED INFORMATION WITH -- WITH 12 WHAT OTHER DEFENDANT OR ENTITY ARE YOU REFERRING?
13 A. THERE WERE -- I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 1,
14 AND BOTH NILS, BRAND AND THE R.O.W. P.A.C. ALL HAD
15 SIMILAR INFORMATION ON THEM.

021318.txt
16 Q. WHAT WAS --
17 A. AND EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION IN SOME
18 CASES, INCLUDING PHOTOS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED ON 19 THEIR OWN PERSONAL PAGE -- WEBSITE, FACEBOOK PAGES,
20 TWITTER, AND -- AND IN OTHER LOCATIONS.
21 Q. OKAY. DO YOU STILL HAVE COPIES OF THAT --
22 THAT INFORMATION -- THAT SHARED INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE 23 JUST DESCRIBED?
24 A. IT WAS ALL PROVIDED IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE
25 ALREADY GIVEN TO YOU.
24 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. ALL RIGHT. THOSE WERE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU
2 PROVIDED TO YOUR ATTORNEY?
3 A. WE DID PROVIDE THOSE, YES.
4 Q. OKAY. NO. MY QUESTION IS: THOSE ARE
5 DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO YOUR ATTORNEY?
6 A. YES.
7 Q. AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT -- WHAT INFORMATION
8 YOU PROVIDED. WERE THEY CAMPAIGN FLIERS?
9 A. CAMPAIGN FLIERS.
10 Q. OKAY.

021318.txt
11 A. PRINTOUTS FROM FACEBOOK PAGES, TWITTER FEEDS,
12 AND OTHER -- AND OTHER ONLINE POSTED INFORMATION.
13 Q. AND WHEN YOU RECEIVED THIS SHARED INFORMATION,
14 DID YOU RECEIVE IT FROM BILL BRAND? FROM
15 MR. NEHRENHEIM? FROM R.O.W. P.A.C.? OR -- OR WHICH OF 16 THE DEFENDANTS SENT YOU THIS INFORMATION?
17 A. ALL OF THEM.
18 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; COMPOUND.
19 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
20 THE WITNESS: ALL OF THE ABOVE.
21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAW
22 PHOTOGRAPHS. WHAT PHOTOGRAPHS DID YOU -- DID YOU SEE OR 23 RECEIVE FROM THESE DEFENDANTS?
24 A. PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE BEEN POSTED OF VARIOUS
25 EVENTS, DEMONSTRATIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES, SHARED ON
25 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 FACEBOOK BY INDIVIDUAL USERS.
2 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY THEY WERE SHARED ON
3 FACEBOOK, WERE THEY SHARED ON FACEBOOK BY BILL BRAND, IF 4 YOU KNOW?

021318.txt
5 A. I DON'T RECALL IF I'VE SEEN SOMETHING SPECIFIC
6 FROM BILL BRAND --
7 Q. OKAY. WERE THEY --
8 A. -- BY HIS PERSON, BUT I HAD SEEN MATERIALS
9 THAT WAS POSTED ON HIS CAMPAIGN SITE.
10 Q. WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PHOTOS RIGHT NOW.
11 A. OKAY.
12 Q. DID YOU SEE ANY PHOTOS POSTED ON FACEBOOK BY
13 NILS NEHRENHEIM OR HIS CAMPAIGN?
14 A. YES.
15 Q. DESCRIBE THOSE PHOTOS FOR ME.
16 A. PHOTOS OF MR. NEHRENHEIM AND MR. BRAND AND
17 MR. CRAIG WORKING TOGETHER IN COMMON EVENTS FOR
18 FUNDRAISERS, PRE-, DURING AND AFTER THE CAMPAIGN, MAKING 19 SPEECHES, DISCUSSING; AND IF I MAY TALK ABOUT THE
20 VIDEOS, TOO, THAT WERE POSTED, WHERE THEY ARE TALKING 21 ABOUT ACTUALLY WORKING TOGETHER AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF 22 SITUATIONS WHEN OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS ARE IN A DIFFERENCE 23 OF OPINION.
24 Q. ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU EVER PERSONALLY PRESENT
25 AT ANY OF THESE EVENTS THAT YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED?
26 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 A. THOSE ONES THAT I WAS REFERRING TO, NO.
2 Q. OKAY.
3 A. I HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT AN EVENT -- OR A COUPLE
4 OF EVENTS IN THE PAST PROBABLY IN THE 2016 TIME FRAME. 5 Q. OKAY. WHAT WERE THOSE EVENTS THAT YOU WERE
6 PRESENT AT?
7 A. INFORMATION EVENTS REGARDING RESCUE OUR
8 WATERFRONT.
9 Q. OKAY. RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT, ARE YOU
10 REFERRING TO THE GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZATION OR ARE YOU 11 REFERRING TO THE RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT P.A.C. THAT
12 YOU'VE INCLUDED IN THIS LAWSUIT?
13 A. IT WAS UNCLEAR WHEN THAT TRANSITION HAPPENED,
14 SO I COULD NOT TELL YOU.
15 Q. OKAY. WELL, TELL US IN 2016 WHAT MONTH YOU
16 ATTENDED THESE PAST EVENTS WITH R.O.W.
17 A. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT A CALENDAR TO BE
18 SPECIFIC. I KNOW THAT IT WAS RAINING ON ONE OF THEM; 19 SO, THEREFORE, IT HAD TO BE A WINTER. I'M SORRY. I
20 COULDN'T TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DATES WITHOUT 21 LOOKING.
22 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF BEING
23 INVOLVED -- OR BEING IN ATTENDANCE AT A R.O.W. EVENT AT

021318.txt
24 THE LOCAL HOTEL ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BERYL AND 25 HARBOR DRIVE IN DECEMBER OF 2015?
27 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I DO.
2 Q. OKAY. AND YOU -- WHERE WERE YOU SEATED --
3 WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
4 WERE YOU SEATED TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE ROOM
5 AND ON THE RIGHTHAND SIDE NEAR MARYANN CAROL GUTHRIE? 6 A. I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE WAS, BUT I WAS STANDING
7 AT THE REAR.
8 Q. OKAY. AND DURING THAT FIRST -- LET'S CALL IT
9 THE -- WAS THAT THE ONLY EVENT THAT YOU ATTENDED WITH 10 R.O.W.?
11 A. NO.
12 Q. OKAY. IN THAT -- IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION?
13 A. NO.
14 Q. OKAY. WERE YOU PRESENT WITH ARNETTE TRAVIS AT
15 THAT FIRST EVENT?
16 A. I BELIEVE SHE WAS THERE, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN.
17 Q. OKAY. AND AT THAT EVENT, WAS -- WAS THAT A

021318.txt
18 PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT 19 GRASS ROOTS GROUP ABOUT WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE 20 HARBOR?
21 A. IT WAS A PRESENTATION BY A GROUP CALLED RESCUE
22 OUR WATERFRONT.
23 Q. OKAY.
24 A. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I CAN'T BE CERTAIN WHEN
25 THEY BECAME A GRASS ROOTS VERSUS A P.A.C. BECAUSE IT WAS 28 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 LEFT OFF OF EVERY -- ALL THE DOCUMENTATION.
2 Q. WHAT DOCUMENTATION ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
3 A. SIGNAGE, BROCHURES, A NUMBER OF OTHER PAPER
4 INFORMATION THAT WAS BEING DISTRIBUTED, INCLUDING THE 5 WEBSITES.
6 Q. AT THAT EVENT, THESE ITEMS WERE BEING
7 DISTRIBUTED?
8 A. THERE WAS -- THERE WAS A HANDOUT FROM THAT
9 EVENT, YES.
10 Q. AND DID YOU TAKE A COPY OF IT?
11 A. I BELIEVE I DID.
12 Q. DID YOU PRODUCE IT IN THIS LAWSUIT?

021318.txt
13 A. I'M UN- -- I DON'T RECALL IF THAT WAS ONE OF
14 THE DOCUMENTS.
15 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION THAT THE
16 PRESENTATION THAT EVENING AT THE FIRST EVENT WAS BEING 17 MADE BY JIM LIGHT?
18 A. YES.
19 Q. AND CANDACE NAFISSI?
20 A. YES.
21 Q. AND MARTIN HOLMES?
22 A. YES.
23 Q. WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT WHO
24 PARTICIPATED IN THAT PRESENTATION?
25 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE TERM
29 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 "PARTICIPATED" AS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. DO YOU MEAN -- 2 MR. COLIN: ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.
3 MR. HERTZ: -- AS PRESENTERS?
4 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.
5 A. I DON'T RECALL.
6 Q. AND AT THAT FIRST EVENT, WERE YOU ASKED TO

021318.txt
7 LEAVE THE -- THE EVENT?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF SHOUTING FROM
10 THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND INTERRUPTING THE PRESENTATION 11 THAT WAS BEING MADE BY THOSE INDIVIDUALS?
12 A. OH, I DON'T HAVE TO RECALL ANYTHING. WE
13 ACTUALLY HAVE IT RECORDED.
14 Q. OH, HAVE YOU PRODUCED THAT RECORDING IN THIS
15 LITIGATION?
16 A. IT WAS ONLY JUST FOUND BY A THIRD-PARTY PERSON
17 THAT WAS PRESENT ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
18 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. OKAY. AND YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED IT TODAY, HAVE
21 YOU?
22 A. NO. I DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE
23 ANYTHING WITH A RECORDING.
24 Q. AND WHERE IS THE RECORDING? IS IT ON
25 VIDEOTAPE? IS IT ONLINE?
30 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. IT IS ON A FLASH DRIVE.

021318.txt
2 Q. AND HOW LONG IS THE -- THE EVENT THAT WAS
3 RECORDED?
4 A. TO BE HONEST, I'M UNCERTAIN. I BELIEVE IT WAS
5 ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, BUT I DID NOT LOOK AT THAT. 6 Q. WHO GAVE IT TO YOU?
7 A. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT.
8 Q. WELL, UNLESS YOU'RE INSTRUCTED, MR. VOISEY,
9 NOT TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, I'M ENTITLED TO RECEIVE 10 IT.
11 MR. HERTZ: WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE A BREAK AND
12 TALK IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION --
13 THE WITNESS: YEAH.
14 MR. HERTZ: -- IN THAT REGARD.
15 MR. COLIN: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE
16 BREAK SO THAT YOU CAN TALK TO HIM AND WE CAN FIND OUT 17 WHO -- WHO GAVE HIM THAT FLASH VIDEO.
18 MR. HERTZ: SURE. LET'S GO.
19 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
20 (WITNESS AND MR. HERTZ HAVE LEFT
21 THE PROCEEDINGS FOR AN 11-MINUTE
22 OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION.)
23 MR. COLIN: BACK ON THE RECORD.
24 Q. NOW, MR. VOISEY, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT
25 SOMEBODY HAD PROVIDED YOU WITH A VIDEO OF ONE OF THE

021318.txt
31 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 R.O.W. EVENTS, AND YOU BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT AN HOUR AND 2 A HALF LONG. WHO PROVIDED THAT VIDEO TO YOU?
3 A. FOR CLARIFICATION, I SAID A RECORDING.
4 Q. OKAY.
5 A. AND IT WAS ELIZABETH DIELS, WHO I JUST DIDN'T
6 FEEL LIKE IT WAS RELEVANT TO BRING ANOTHER PERSON INTO A 7 CONVERSATION; AND I HAD REACHED OUT TO HER BECAUSE I
8 REMEMBER SEEING HER AND ANOTHER PERSON THAT I DON'T
9 REMEMBER WHO RECORDED IT.
10 Q. OKAY. WHO WAS THE PERSON?
11 A. ELIZABETH DIELS.
12 Q. ELIZABETH DIELS, THE WIFE OF THE CITY
13 TREASURER, STEVE DIELS?
14 A. SHE'S A PERSON ON HER OWN; BUT YES, SHE IS
15 MARRIED TO HIM.
16 Q. OKAY. WHEN DID SHE GIVE YOU A COPY OF THAT
17 RECORDING?
18 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
19 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE OF

021318.txt
20 HER PRESENTING YOU WITH THAT RECORDING?
21 A. YES. ACTUALLY, I DO; BECAUSE I WAS READING UP
22 ON SOME THINGS TO REVIEW. A LOT OF ACCUSATIONS WERE
23 MADE BY MR. CRAIG AND MS. NAFISSI REGARDING COMMENTS 24 THAT I SAID THAT WERE INACCURATE, AND I JUST FINALLY 25 WANTED TO GO AND REVIEW THAT RECORDING TO SEE HOW EVEN 32 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MY WORDS COULD HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED, AND IT TURNS 2 OUT THAT THE WORDING THAT IS BEING USED AND SPREAD TO 3 SAY THAT I WAS DONE -- EMPLOYED BY ANYBODY ELSE WAS
4 ACTUALLY INACCURATE.
5 WHAT I DID SAY IS THAT I HAD A LOT OF FRIENDS
6 THAT OWNED THE BUSINESSES DOWN AT THE WATERFRONT AND
7 THEY WEREN'T THERE, AND I DID HAVE THEIR APPROVAL TO
8 SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM TO SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT MAKING 9 MONEY IN THE WINTER. THEY MAKE IT FOR THE SUMMER, AND I 10 CAN TELL YOU THAT WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE BUSINESSES 11 DOWN ON THE WATERFRONT WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT PLANS 12 MOVING FORWARD.
13 Q. OKAY. WELL, WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
14 WHICH YOU LEARNED THAT ELIZABETH DIELS HAD A RECORDING

021318.txt
15 OF THE HOUR-AND-A-HALF-LONG PUBLIC MEETING THAT R.O.W. 16 PRESENTED BACK IN LATE 2015, EARLY 2016?
17 A. JUST ABOUT TWO ROWS IN FRONT OF ME, AND I SAW
18 THE RECORDING GOING OFF --
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. -- AND I JUST FINALLY REMEMBERED TO REACH OUT
21 AND ASK FOR IT.
22 Q. AND SHE GAVE IT TO YOU ABOUT A MONTH AGO?
23 A. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO, YEAH.
24 Q. OKAY. AT THAT MEETING DID YOU INDICATE TO THE
25 PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF 33 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 CENTERCAL AT THAT MEETING?
2 A. I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT.
3 Q. DID YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF
4 OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE HARBOR AREA?
5 A. I SAID, "IN THE BUSINESSES."
6 Q. OKAY.
7 A. I DON'T THINK "THE OWNERS" WAS THE ACTUAL WORD
8 THAT I USED, THAT I RECALL.

021318.txt
9 Q. AND WHEN YOU SAID "THE BUSINESSES," WERE YOU
10 INCLUDING CENTERCAL --
11 A. NO.
12 Q. -- IN THAT TERM?
13 HAVE YOU EVER REPRESENTED THAT YOU WERE A
14 SPOKESPERSON FOR CENTERCAL?
15 A. NO. IN FACT, I'VE ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY STATED
16 THAT I DO NOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM.
17 Q. AND ON HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU EXPLICITLY
18 STATED THAT YOU DO NOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM?
19 A. THAT'S AN ANSWER I COULD NOT GIVE YOU.
20 Q. GIVE ME YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.
21 A. A NUMBER OF TIMES.
22 Q. OKAY. MORE THAN TEN? LESS THAN -- LESS THAN
23 TEN?
24 MR. HERTZ: LET ME JUST INTERPOSE. I'M NOT
25 SURE IF THIS WAS PART OF THE ADMONITION, BUT YOU
34 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 SHOULDN'T GUESS; BUT IF YOU DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION TO 2 BASE AN ANSWER ON, THEN YOU CAN USE THAT TO ANSWER.
3 THE WITNESS: I CAN SAY MORE THAN TEN; BUT,

021318.txt
4 HONESTLY, I -- I AM CONSTANTLY, BECAUSE OF THE
5 ACCUSATIONS, STATING THAT I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
6 CENTERCAL.
7 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, EARLIER, YOU
8 TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED PHOTOS OF EVENTS AND
9 SHARED INFORMATION AND THAT THAT INFORMATION HAD BEEN 10 PRODUCED. IN THESE DEPOSITIONS THERE HAVE BEEN TWO
11 BINDERS THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY YOUR COUNSEL THAT 12 HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN SOME OF THE DEPOSITIONS, AND 13 WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS ASK YOU TO GO THROUGH THE BINDERS 14 AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE SHARED INFORMATION THAT YOU 15 TESTIFIED THAT YOU RECEIVED, AND LET US KNOW WHAT PAGE 16 THOSE FLIERS AND WRITINGS ARE THAT YOU -- THAT YOU
17 RECEIVED.
18 MR. HERTZ: I WOULD --
19 Q. BY MR. COLIN: CAN YOU DO THAT?
20 MR. HERTZ: DID -- NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT
21 MR. COLIN IS REFERRING TO TWO BINDERS THAT EACH HOLD 22 750 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS, SO THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY
23 1500 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. THIS MAY TAKE A WHILE. I CAN 24 CERTAINLY WALK THE WITNESS THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE 25 SOME CERTAINLY WON'T BE RESPONSIVE TO YOUR QUESTION, 35

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 LIKE COPIES OF A BLANK FORM 410, FOR EXAMPLE; BUT IF YOU 2 WANT THE WITNESS TO LOOK THROUGH 1500 PAGES, I THINK
3 WE'RE -- IT'S GOING TO TAKE SEVERAL HOURS JUST TO DO
4 THAT.
5 MR. COLIN: WELL, HE DOESN'T NEED -- I'M SURE
6 HE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE 460'S OR THE FORM 410 OR ANY OF 7 THE AMENDMENTS TO THAT. I'M REFERRING ONLY TO THE
8 INFORMATION THAT HE TESTIFIED TO THAT HE RECEIVED FROM 9 THE DEFENDANT, SO I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PRETTY 10 EASY AND -- AND NOT SO BURDENSOME FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO 11 PINPOINT.
12 MS. ZIMMER: DO YOU HAVE AN INDEX OF THEM SO
13 HE KNOWS WHAT TO --
14 MR. HERTZ: I DO; AND I CAN ALSO JUST TURN TO
15 PAGE -- INTERNAL -- TURN PAST PAGES THAT ARE NOT GOING 16 TO BE --
17 MR. COLIN: YEAH.
18 MR. HERTZ: -- RELEVANT TO THAT QUESTION.
19 MR. COLIN: I MEAN, IF YOU CAN ASSIST HIM,
20 WE'RE ALL FOR THAT.
21 MR. HERTZ: SURE. OKAY. AND SO JUST FOR THE

021318.txt
22 RECORD, THE FIRST VOLUME IS P-1 THROUGH P-750; AND AS 23 FAR AS DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF MR. VOISEY
24 INDIVIDUALLY, THERE WAS A CATEGORY THAT STARTS ON
25 PAGE P-4; BUT THAT'S INFORMATION THAT MR. VOICE HAD P-5 36 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 BEING HIS REDACTED DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND THEN P-6 AND -7 2 THE WITNESS CAN SPEAK TO AS A MAILER HE RECEIVED AND
3 THAT WE PRODUCED.
4 THE WITNESS: THAT IS CORRECT. THAT ACTUALLY
5 HAS MY NAME ON IT.
6 MR. COLIN: SO P-6 AND -7. ALL RIGHT.
7 MR. HERTZ: DO YOU WANT HIM TO DISCUSS --
8 MR. COLIN: NO.
9 MR. HERTZ: -- DISCUSS IT OR JUST IDENTIFY IT?
10 MR. COLIN: IDENTIFY THE PAGE --
11 MR. HERTZ: OKAY.
12 MR. COLIN: -- THAT SHOWS THE SHARED
13 INFORMATION.
14 MR. HERTZ: OKAY.
15 THE WITNESS: IT'S PROBABLY RELEVANT TO SAY
16 THAT WE DIDN'T -- WHERE WE HAD ARNETTE PRODUCE THE SAME

021318.txt
17 MATERIALS, WE USED ONE OF THEM IN SOME CASES.
18 MR. HERTZ: RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THERE WAS A
19 PRODUCTION BY ARNETTE OF A FEW PAGES, INCLUDING HER
20 DRIVER'S LICENSE, A PRODUCTION BY CHRIS OF A FEW PAGES, 21 INCLUDING THE REDACTED DRIVER'S LICENSE, PHOTOCOPY AND 22 PAGES P-6 AND P-7, AND THEN THE REST OF THE PRODUCTION 23 WAS ON BOTH OF THEIR BEHALFS.
24 MR. COLIN: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WE
25 RECEIVED VERIFICATIONS THROUGH ONE SET OF DOCUMENTS. 37 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. HERTZ: CORRECT.
2 MR. COLIN: OKAY. SO IF HE CAN VERIFY THAT --
3 THE DOCUMENT AT P- -- P-6 AND -7, HE RECEIVED, THAT
4 MAKES IT EASIER SO THAT WE DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH
5 ARNETTE TRAVIS' DOCUMENTS.
6 MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.
7 MR. COLIN: ALL RIGHT.
8 MR. HERTZ: THAT'S FINE.
9 AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LOOKED -- IF YOU,
10 MR. VOISEY, LOOKED AT CAMPAIGN REPORTS OF ANY OF THE

021318.txt
11 DEFENDANTS AND CONSIDERED THAT TO BE PART OF THE
12 INFORMATION YOU REVIEWED. I INCLUDED THE CAMPAIGN
13 REPORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT; BUT DID YOU REVIEW 14 ANY OF THE CAMPAIGN REPORTS FROM --
15 THE WITNESS: FROM TIME TO TIME, I HAVE LOOKED
16 AT THEM. IN AS MUCH LENGTH AS IN HERE IN DETAIL, I
17 WOULD KNOW.
18 MR. COLIN: OKAY. WELL, LET ME JUST BE
19 SPECIFIC.
20 MR. HERTZ: REFERRING TO THAT --
21 MR. COLIN: I'M ASKING HIM TO IDENTIFY THE
22 DOCUMENTS THAT HE TESTIFIED TO THAT HE RECEIVED FROM THE 23 CANDIDATES, NOT WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO ACCESS ONLINE WITH 24 THE COUNTY --
25 MR. HERTZ: OKAY.
38 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. COLIN: -- OR, I MEAN, WITH THE CITY.
2 MR. HERTZ: OKAY. I THINK THAT COVERS IT AS
3 TO VOLUME I.
4 MR. COLIN: THANK YOU. AND LATER ONES WE
5 IDENTIFY THE PAGES. WE'LL GO AHEAD AT A LATER PART,

021318.txt
6 MARK THEM AS AN EXHIBIT.
7 MR. HERTZ: FOR THE RECORD, THE BINDER NO. 2
8 STARTS AT PAGE P-751 AND GOES THROUGH P-1414.
9 PAGE P-809 IS, I BELIEVE, THE LAST OF THE FORM 460'S FOR 10 THE NEHRENHEIM FOR COUNCIL 2017 COMMITTEE, AND THEN I'LL 11 DIRECT THE WITNESS TO P-810 BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE 12 CAMPAIGN MATERIALS.
13 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
14 MR. HERTZ: SO AT THIS POINT I THINK MR. COLIN
15 JUST WANTS YOU TO IDENTIFY IF YOU RECOGNIZE SOMETHING IN 16 THE BINDER AS SOMETHING YOU RECEIVED DURING THE
17 CAMPAIGN --
18 MR. COLIN: CORRECT.
19 MR. HERTZ: -- ON THIS SHARED INFORMATION
20 FRONT.
21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: RIGHT. WHAT HE RECEIVED, NOT
22 ARNETTE TRAVIS, YEAH.
23 A. ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU WANT TO JUST NOTE THE
24 PAGE NUMBERS?
25 Q. YES.
39 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 A. SO I DID SEE A -- I DID RECEIVE THE
2 INFORMATION ON P-810. I DID RECEIVE THE INFORMATION
3 ON -- WELL, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH A BUNCH OF THESE
4 HERE. LET'S SEE. SO I'M GOING TO START AT PAGE P-810
5 AND -- AND BY RECEIVE, YOU ALSO -- THAT I HAVE -- THAT I 6 HAVE SEEN AND HELPED SUBMIT, ARE WE REFERRING TO
7 SPECIFIC E-MAILS OR PAPER PRODUCTS BEING SENT TO ME
8 SPECIFICALLY?
9 Q. THOSE THAT YOU RECEIVED EITHER ELECTRONICALLY
10 OR BY MAIL.
11 A. OKAY. BY "ELECTRONICALLY," DO YOU MEAN
12 DIRECTLY TO ME?
13 Q. YES.
14 A. OR -- OKAY. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ARE TAKEN
15 FROM FACEBOOK PAGES WHICH I DID RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS 16 OF, TO BE SPECIFIC ON THOSE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM A 17 RECEIPT POINT, I DID GET 8- -- P-810 THROUGH P-816. I 18 DID GET NOTIFICATIONS ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE AND DID READ 19 WHAT I'M SEEING ON -- BEGINNING ON P-817, THOSE
20 CONVERSATIONS; AND I DO -- FOR YOUR RECORD, I DO
21 ACTUALLY REMEMBER SPECIFICS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS IN 22 READING THROUGH THEM, AND I GOT NOTIFICATIONS THROUGH 23 FACEBOOK OF THESE THAT THEY WERE POSTED.

021318.txt
24 Q. IF YOU CAN, JUST TELL US WHAT PAGES YOU'RE
25 REFERRING TO.
40 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. SO FAR, LIKE I SAID, I STARTED AT PAGE P-1817,
2 AND SO FAR EVERY ONE OF THESE PAGES DID GET A
3 NOTIFICATION AND I DID READ THROUGH. I REMEMBER THAT
4 VERY CLEARLY. OH, YEAH, THAT WAS THE FACEBOOK ONE. I
5 DO REMEMBER READING THIS ONLINE. SO FAR I AM ON
6 PAGE P-380 AND I DID GET NOTIFICATIONS. THESE ARE ALL 7 FACEBOOK PAGES WHICH I HAD FOLLOWED, SO I WAS GETTING 8 NOTIFICATIONS OF.
9 Q. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE FACEBOOK PAGE OR
10 PAGES THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING THESE MESSAGES OR
11 INFORMATION ON?
12 A. BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017.
13 Q. NO; WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOURS. WHAT FACEBOOK
14 PAGES WERE YOU --
15 A. MY PERSONAL I.D. YOU DESCRIBE THROUGH YOUR
16 PERSONAL I.D.
17 Q. BUT WHAT WERE THE FACEBOOK PAGES YOU WERE
18 RECEIVING THESE DOCUMENTS ON?

021318.txt
19 A. THERE'S -- THAT'S TECHNICALLY AN INCORRECT WAY
20 OF STATING IT.
21 Q. OKAY.
22 A. YOU ARE RECEIVING A NOTIFICATION BY
23 SUBSCRIBING TO SOMETHING OR FOLLOWING IT, TO BE
24 SPECIFIC, ON FACEBOOK, AND IT IS THE PAGES THAT THEY'RE 25 POSTED ON. YOU CAN FOLLOW AND GET THE NOTIFICATIONS
41 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 FOR.
2 Q. OKAY. SO THEY WEREN'T BEING SENT DIRECTLY TO
3 YOU. YOU WERE ACCESSING THE DOCUMENTS ON A DIFFERENT
4 FACEBOOK PAGE, THE FACEBOOK PAGE OF BILL BRAND FOR MAYOR 5 OR SOMEBODY ELSE?
6 A. I WAS GETTING A NOTIFICATION --
7 Q. OKAY?
8 A. -- TO MY I.D. ON FACEBOOK THAT SAYS THAT THERE
9 IS NEW INFORMATION ON FACEBOOK THAT'S POSTED ON YES FOR 10 MEASURE C, BILL BRAND FOR MAYOR 2017, IF I RECALL.
11 Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY ON YOUR FACEBOOK I.D., WHAT
12 WAS THAT NUMBER THAT YOU WERE RECEIVING THE

021318.txt
13 NOTIFICATIONS ON?
14 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION, IT MAY MISSTATE THE
15 TESTIMONY. I DON'T KNOW THAT HE SAID FACEBOOK I.D. I 16 THOUGHT -- I THOUGHT YOU -- MR. COLIN SAID FACEBOOK I.D. 17 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION IF YOU
18 UNDERSTAND IT.
19 THE WITNESS: I HAVE A -- AGAIN, IT SOUNDS
20 LIKE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT WORKS. YOU HAVE AN 21 I.D. THAT YOU ARE SET UP AS AND I'M SIGNED ON AND
22 VERIFIED THROUGH FACEBOOK THAT I LOG IN, AND I CAN -- 23 AND IT IS UNDER CHRIS VOISEY, AND THOSE ARE SENT AS A 24 NOTIFICATION UP IN THE UPPER RIGHTHAND CORNER TO
25 ANYTHING THAT IS COMING IN.
42 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. DID THE DOCUMENTS THAT
2 YOU'VE REFERENCED FROM 810 TO 816 AND 817 TO THE -- TO 3 THE -- WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH NOW SHOW WHAT THE -- 4 WHAT THE FACEBOOK I.D. OR WHAT THE I.D. NUMBER IS? IS 5 THERE ANYTHING THAT HELPS US TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT TO 6 SEE WHERE IT WAS SENT OR WHERE IT WAS RECEIVED?
7 A. I DO NOT KNOW THAT ANSWER.

021318.txt
8 Q. OKAY. SO WE'RE AT 817 THROUGH --
9 A. SO FAR I'M CURRENTLY AT 833. I STILL
10 RECOGNIZE EVERYTHING. I REMEMBER GETTING THOSE INVITES. 11 I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T RECALL READING THE P-837.
12 Q. SO LET'S GO FROM 817 TO --
13 A. 836.
14 Q. -- 836. OKAY.
15 A. HOWEVER, THAT IS PART OF A WHOLE OTHER ONE; SO
16 YES, I DID GET A NOTIFICATION ON THIS, SO MY MISTAKE. 17 IT SEEMS LIKE THESE ARE ALL PART OF THE PAGE IN THE
18 NOTIFICATIONS THAT CAME UP BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCESSIVE 19 HERE, SO THESE WOULD BE CORRECT.
20 YEAH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT THESE ARE ALL
21 PUBLIC PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED HERE, AND THE
22 NOTIFICATIONS FOR ALL OF THESE PAGES SEEM LIKE IT -- ANY 23 TYPE OF POST THAT WAS GOING, I WAS GETTING.
24 Q. AND DID YOU REQUEST TO RECEIVE THE
25 NOTIFICATION FROM THOSE DIFFERENT PAGES THAT YOU SAW? 43 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. YES. I WOULD HAVE CLICKED ON "FOLLOW."

021318.txt
2 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'RE FOLLOWING THEM. ALL RIGHT.
3 A. SO THAT'S THROUGH P-840. NOW, P-841 IS -- I
4 REMEMBER THIS FROM "THE BEACH REPORTER," WHICH HAS BEEN 5 DELIVERED TO MY DOORSTEP, AND I DO RECALL TAKING A
6 PICTURE OF THIS. IT VERY MUCH MIMICKED A FLIER THAT WAS 7 ALSO SENT FOR THE BILL BRAND CAMPAIGN.
8 Q. OKAY.
9 MR. HERTZ: AT THIS POINT, JUST FOR CLARITY,
10 JUST FOCUS ON WHETHER YOU IDENTIFY IT --
11 THE WITNESS: SURE.
12 MR. HERTZ: -- AND THE NUMBER, AND THEN I'M
13 SURE YOU'LL GET PLENTY OF QUESTIONS.
14 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
15 MR. COLIN: OH, YEAH.
16 THE WITNESS: SO FAR, I RECOGNIZE ALL OF
17 THESE.
18 Q. BY MR. COLIN: I'M NOT ASKING WHETHER YOU
19 RECOGNIZE THEM. I'M ASKING YOU TO IDENTIFY THE ONES
20 THAT YOU RECEIVED.
21 A. SO FAR, I'VE RECEIVED EVERY ONE OF THESE.
22 Q. ALL RIGHT.
23 A. OF COURSE, THIS ONE ACTUALLY HAS MY NAME ON
24 IT, P-844.
25 Q. LET'S JUST KEEP TRACK OF THE PAGES.

021318.txt
44 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO EXCLUDE ANY ONES
2 THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE I'VE RECEIVED ALL OF
3 THESE SUCCESSIVELY.
4 Q. NOW, WE NEED FOR YOU TO IDENTIFY EACH PAGE AS
5 WE GO ALONG.
6 A. OKAY.
7 Q. YEAH.
8 A. SO CAN WE SAY SUCCESSIVELY THROUGH 845.
9 P-845, I DID RECEIVE. P-846, I DID RECEIVE. P-847, I
10 DID RECEIVE. P-848 AND P-849, I DID RECEIVE AS AN
11 E-MAIL. P850, I DID RECEIVE; AND NOW WE ARE AT AN
12 AGENDA FOR A COASTAL COMMISSION PRESENTATION.
13 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT?
14 A. I WAS AT IT. THIS WAS POSTED ON THE PUBLIC
15 WEBSITE AND I DID LOOK AT THAT PAGE.
16 Q. BUT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE IT FROM ANY OF THE
17 DEFENDANTS, DID YOU?
18 A. THE PAGE ITSELF, NO.
19 Q. OKAY. SO LET'S JUST BE CLEAR THAT WE WANT
20 ONLY THE PAGES MENTIONED FOR DOCUMENTS THAT YOU --

021318.txt
21 A. OKAY.
22 Q. -- THAT YOU RECEIVED.
23 A. I DID GET P-856. I DID GET THE NEWSPAPER THAT
24 HAD P-858, P-859, AND THAT CONTINUES TO P-860. THESE 25 ARE ALL JUST PART OF THE SAME. AGAIN, P-865 WAS A -- I 45 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DID RECEIVE THE NEWSPAPER AND READ THE ARTICLE.
2 Q. WAS THAT A COPY --
3 A. THAT WAS DELIVERED TO MY DOOR.
4 Q. -- OF THE ACTUAL NEWSPAPER THAT YOU RECEIVED
5 OR SOMETHING THAT YOU A PRINTED OFF ONLINE?
6 A. I TYPICALLY GET THE NEWSPAPER, TAKE THE
7 ARTICLES, AND SAVE THEM FOR -- FOR READING.
8 Q. BUT LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ABOUT WHAT
9 WE'RE DOING HERE. I WANT YOU TO IDENTIFY ONLY THE
10 DOCUMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT WERE SENT TO YOU BY ANY 11 OF THE DEFENDANTS, NOT --
12 A. OKAY.
13 Q. -- ANYTHING THAT YOU ACCESSED OFF OF A
14 NEWSPAPER WEBSITE.

021318.txt
15 A. OKAY. SO WE CAN CHANGE FROM THE REQUEST OF
16 ANYTHING I RECEIVED TO SPECIFICALLY FROM THE DEFENDANTS. 17 NEWSPAPER. OH, I BELIEVE THAT THE PAGE 882,
18 WHICH IS THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT INTENT, WAS
19 DISTRIBUTED AT THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED MEETING AT THE 20 REDONDO BEACH HOTEL, AND I DID RECEIVE FROM THAT EVENT A 21 PRINTOUT OF THIS. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT I DO NOT 22 RECALL WHO SPECIFICALLY GAVE IT TO ME, BUT I DID WALK 23 AWAY WITH THIS DOCUMENT FROM THAT MEETING.
24 Q. OKAY. GIVE ME THE SPECIFIC PAGES.
25 A. I'M ABOUT TO WHEN I FINISH. P-882 THROUGH
46 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 P-893.
2 Q. OKAY. AND YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU RECEIVED
3 THE -- THIS DOCUMENT -- OR THESE PAGES AT ONE OF THE
4 INITIAL R.O.W. MEETINGS THAT WAS HELD AT THAT HOTEL -- 5 THE REDONDO HOTEL WHERE YOU SAW ELIZABETH DIELS
6 RECORDING THE -- THE MEETING?
7 A. I DID RECEIVE A SIMILAR DOCUMENT. WHETHER
8 THIS WAS THE SPECIFIC ONE OR NOT --
9 Q. OKAY.

021318.txt
10 A. -- I CANNOT TELL YOU, BUT I CAN TELL YOU
11 THAT -- SOMETHING THAT WENT INTO WHAT THE KING HARBOR 12 CARE ACT WAS, SO -- BECAUSE THE REASON I REMEMBER THAT 13 IS I REMEMBER GOING HOME THAT NIGHT AND READING THE
14 DOCUMENT --
15 Q. OKAY.
16 A. -- AND TRYING TO FIND IT ONLINE. IT WASN'T
17 THERE YET.
18 Q. OKAY. LET ME BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I'M
19 ASKING YOU. I WANT YOU TO IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTS THAT 20 YOU RECEIVED FROM ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS. OKAY?
21 NOW, DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
22 RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT GROUP AND THE RESCUE OUR
23 WATERFRONT P.A.C.? DO YOU KNOW THE LEGAL DISTINCTION? 24 A. I DO NOW, YES.
25 Q. OKAY. AND IN YOUR MIND, WHAT'S THE LEGAL
47 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DISTINCTION?
2 A. WELL, ONE WAS A COMMITTEE THAT WAS SET UP TO
3 START THIS PROCESS; AND ONCE THEY GOT OVER AN

021318.txt
4 EXPENDITURE AMOUNT, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2,000, THEY WERE 5 REQUIRED TO FORM A P.A.C. TO -- TO -- TO SUPPORT A
6 MEASURE OR WHATEVER IT WAS THEY WERE GOING TO DO. THERE 7 WAS CONFUSION AT THE BEGINNING ON THIS, AND I STILL DO 8 UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS, AND I DID STATE WHEN I 9 GOT TO PAGE 882 THAT I DO NOT RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHO 10 GAVE THIS TO ME, AND I COULD NOT TELL YOU IF IT WAS ONE 11 OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WAS IN THERE. AND EARLIER IN THIS 12 TESTIMONY, I ALSO DID SAY THAT I'M UNCLEAR OF WHEN IT 13 BECAME A P.A.C. VERSUS A COMMITTEE.
14 Q. OKAY. SO YOU DON'T KNOW -- WELL, DID YOU
15 RECEIVE THAT --
16 A. AT.
17 Q. -- AT THE MEETING -- AT THE R.O.W. MEETING IN
18 LATE 2015 OR SOMETIME LATER?
19 A. THIS -- 2016 IS THE DATE ON THIS ONE, AND I DO
20 REMEMBER WALKING OUT OF THE MEETING THAT WE WERE TALKING 21 ABOUT. AGAIN, WHETHER THERE WAS THIS SPECIFIC DOCUMENT 22 OR AN EARLIER REPRESENTATION OF IT, I'M NOT SURE IF THE 23 DATES ALIGN. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT MY CALENDAR.
24 Q. AND WHEN DO YOU RECALL THE MEETING TOOK PLACE,
25 THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IT, THIS SECOND MEETING WHERE 48 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt

1 YOU -- WHERE YOU TESTIFIED YOU RECEIVED THIS -- THIS
2 DOCUMENT FROM 882 TO P-893?
3 A. I RECALL WALKING OUT OF A MEETING AT THE
4 REDONDO BEACH HOTEL WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED WITH THE
5 INTENT OF WHAT THE CARE ACT WAS ABOUT.
6 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN WAS THAT --
7 MR. HERTZ: I'LL INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION THAT I
8 DON'T THINK HE SAID, "THIS DOCUMENT." MISSTATES THE
9 EVIDENCE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE SAID "THIS DOCUMENT." 10 HE SAID A -- A SIMILAR LOOKING DOCUMENT THAT TALKED
11 ABOUT THE KING HARBOR HISTORY OR THE CARE ACT HISTORY. 12 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT SURE --
13 WELL, WHEN DID -- YOU DON'T BELIEVE -- YOU CAN'T TESTIFY 14 WHETHER YOU RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENT AT -- WE WILL CALL IT 15 THE SECOND R.O.W. MEETING OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, CORRECT? 16 A. I CAN SAY THAT I RECEIVED A DOCUMENT SIMILAR
17 TO THIS --
18 Q. OKAY.
19 A. -- AT THAT MEETING.
20 Q. BUT YOU'RE NOT -- WE HAVE ASKED YOU NOT TO
21 SPECULATE. SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
22 ACTUAL DOCUMENT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT, CORRECT?

021318.txt
23 A. AS STATED, YES.
24 Q. OKAY. SO LET'S MOVE ON FROM THAT DOCUMENT.
25 I'M ASKING YOU TO TELL US WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU ACTUALLY 49 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 RECEIVED FROM ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS, SO PLEASE REFRAIN 2 FROM SPECULATING.
3 THE WITNESS: WHERE DO WE GO NEXT FROM HERE?
4 MR. HERTZ: LET'S SEE.
5 THE WITNESS: OKAY. SO THESE WERE SIMILAR TO
6 THE CITY (INDICATING). I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING THROUGH A 7 LOT OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
8 HERE WE GO. I DID RECEIVE P-976 AS A MAILER,
9 977, 978, P-979. I WILL SAY THAT THESE ARE NOT MY
10 COPIES OF THIS, BUT THESE WERE SENT TO ME, AS WELL.
11 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ARE THOSE YOUR COPIES OR COPIES
12 THAT YOUR --
13 A. THESE ARE NOT MY COPIES.
14 Q. OKAY. I'M ASKING YOU TO JUST IDENTIFY WHAT
15 YOU RECEIVED.
16 A. OKAY. AND, AGAIN, I DID RECEIVE THESE, BUT

021318.txt
17 THESE ARE NOT MY COPIES. THAT'S MY SPECIFIC ANSWER.
18 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE THEM IN THE MAIL?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. OKAY. IS THERE A MAILER OR A LABEL THAT SHOWS
21 THAT THESE WERE MAILED TO YOU?
22 A. ON THESE DOCUMENTS, NO; BUT I ACTUALLY DO HAVE
23 A COPY OF THIS ONE STILL.
24 Q. DID YOU PRODUCE IT?
25 A. I'M NOT SURE, BECAUSE WHEN WE PRODUCED A LOT
50 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 OF THE DOCUMENTS, ARNETTE AND I PUT THEM TOGETHER AND 2 TOOK OUT DUPLICATES.
3 Q. OKAY. WAS THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT SENT TO
4 ARNETTE TRAVIS?
5 A. IT LOOKS LIKE IT BY THE REDACTED INFORMATION
6 AND THE ZIP CODE 92078.
7 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE IT WAS SENT TO HER,
8 RIGHT?
9 A. ACTUALLY, I CAN TELL YOU IT WAS SENT TO HER
10 BECAUSE I REMEMBER SEEING THIS IN HER HANDS AND
11 SUBMITTED; AND BEFORE IT WAS REDACTED, IT HAD --

021318.txt
12 Q. AND WHO REDACTED IT, YOU OR HER?
13 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE EXTENT IT MAY
14 INVADE THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK 15 PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.
16 Q. BY MR. COLIN: BUT THIS IS -- BUT YOU CAN TELL
17 THAT THIS IS ONE THAT WAS NOT SENT TO YOU.
18 A. THIS SPECIFIC COPY OF IT, NO.
19 Q. OKAY. WHAT PAGE IS THAT -- OR WHAT PAGES?
20 A. P-976 THROUGH P-979. I CAN TELL YOU THAT
21 P-982 WAS SENT TO ME. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO TELL 22 WHETHER THIS IS MY COPY OR NOT FROM THIS, BUT IT WAS A 23 HUNDRED PERCENT RECEIVED BY ME.
24 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE -- THE
25 DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT TO YOU?
51 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK OR IF IT WAS -- IF IT'S
2 A REDACTED ONE.
3 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT -- YOU'RE NOT SURE?
4 A. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL YOU.
5 Q. OKAY. AND THOSE ARE PAGES 982 THROUGH --

021318.txt
6 A. SO 982, 983, 984, 985 -- BY THE ORDERING OF
7 THESE, I FEEL LIKE 986 WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT DELIVERED 8 TO ME. I SEE MY ZIP. P-987 WAS DELIVERED TO ME. P-988 9 WAS DELIVERED TO ME. P-989 WAS DELIVERED TO ME. WELL, 10 I CAN TELL YOU THIS ONE DEFINITELY, TOO, P-990, SINCE I 11 AM DISTRICT 1.
12 Q. DOES IT HAVE YOUR ADDRESS ON THE LABEL?
13 A. IT IS REDACTED.
14 Q. OKAY.
15 A. IT WOULD HAVE HAD MY ADDRESS ON THE ORIGINAL.
16 Q. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL?
17 THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT'S EITHER IN YOUR
18 HANDS OR MINE. I'M NOT SURE.
19 MR. HERTZ: "YOUR" MEANING YOUR --
20 Q. BY MR. COLIN: MEANING YOUR ATTORNEY?
21 A. MY ATTORNEY, YES. OKAY. IT'S IN ONE OF --
22 EITHER MY ATTORNEY OR MY HANDS. P-981 -- 991 IS -- LET 23 ME GO BACK TO THIS. I'M GOING TO LET YOU GO THROUGH THE 24 NEXT -- YEAH, I THINK THESE ARE ALL JUST YOUR DOCUMENTS. 25 THAT MIGHT BE IT.
52 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 MR. HERTZ: YEAH.
2 THE WITNESS: YEAH.
3 MR. HERTZ: THE REST ARE PLEADINGS AND
4 DISCOVERY IN THE CASE.
5 MR. COLIN: OKAY.
6 MR. HERTZ: OKAY.
7 Q. BY MR. COLIN: SO LET ME GET THAT BINDER OUT
8 OF YOUR WAY.
9 AND OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THESE TWO
10 BINDERS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU RECALL
11 RECEIVING THAT YOU BELIEVE IS PART OF SHARED INFORMATION 12 BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS?
13 A. I KNOW I RECEIVED OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WERE
14 DISCARDED.
15 Q. WHAT OTHER DOCUMENTS DID YOU RECEIVE?
16 A. OTHER MAILERS AND THINGS --
17 Q. CAN YOU --
18 A. -- BUT I DID NOT SAVE THEM BECAUSE I HAD NO
19 INITIAL INTENT OR BELIEF THAT I WAS SAVING THESE FOR ANY 20 PARTICULAR REASON. AT ONE POINT I STARTED TO SAVE THESE 21 DOCUMENTS NOT BECAUSE OF THIS, BUT BECAUSE OF JUST AN 22 INTEREST IN WHAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS AND WHAT CAMPAIGN
23 MAILERS WERE DOING AND JUST WHAT WAS BEING SENT OUT. 24 Q. WELL, WHEN DID YOU AND ARNETTE TRAVIS FIRST

021318.txt
25 TALK ABOUT FILING THIS LAWSUIT?
53 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. HERTZ: OTHER THAN IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR
2 ATTORNEY.
3 THE WITNESS: WE PROBABLY TALKED ABOUT IT -- I
4 DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC DATE, BUT I KNOW SOMETIME
5 AROUND IN SUMMER. SO LET'S SAY PROBABLY AROUND JUNE,
6 2017, BUT I CAN'T BE CERTAIN IF WE EVER HAD MADE MENTION 7 OF THIS BEFORE THAT.
8 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. JUNE OF 2017, AFTER THE
9 MARCH 7TH ELECTION?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU TALKED TO
12 ARNETTE TRAVIS ABOUT BRINGING THIS LAWSUIT?
13 A. THIS SPECIFIC ONE, YES.
14 Q. WELL, WERE THERE ANY OTHER LAWSUITS THAT YOU
15 AND ARNETTE TALKED ABOUT BRINGING?
16 A. NO.
17 Q. AND THEN YOU WERE ABLE TO GO BACK AND FIND ALL
18 OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED FROM THESE

021318.txt
19 TWO -- IN THESE TWO BINDERS?
20 A. LIKE I SAID, I STARTED TO CAP- -- CAPTURE THEM
21 JUST AS FAR AS HOW A CAMPAIGN IS RUN MORE THAN AN INTENT 22 TO USE IT FOR THIS PURPOSE.
23 Q. AND WAS -- DO YOU KNOW IF ARNETTE TRAVIS WAS
24 DOING THE SAME THING, TRYING TO LOCATE DOCUMENTS THAT 25 SHE HAD RECEIVED IN ORDER TO BRING THIS LAWSUIT?
54 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I DON'T.
2 Q. OKAY. HAD YOU AND ARNETTE TRAVIS TALKED ABOUT
3 FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE FPPC AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS 4 NAMED IN YOUR LAWSUIT?
5 A. WE QUICKLY DISCUSSED IT AND DETERMINED IT WAS
6 PROBABLY BETTER GOING THROUGH OUR OWN -- OUR OWN SYSTEM. 7 PERSONALLY, I'VE SEEN OTHER FPPC COMPLAINTS NOT BEING 8 ADDRESSED QUICKLY OR THOROUGHLY, THAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD 9 A LOT OF INFORMATION AND WE FIGURED WE COULD GET THE
10 DETAILS.
11 Q. OKAY. WHAT OTHER FPPC COMPLAINTS HAVE YOU
12 SEEN?
13 A. I'VE ONLY SEEN WHAT'S BEEN WRITTEN IN THE

021318.txt
14 PAPER AND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. THERE'S BEEN 15 SOME AGAINST STEVE SAMMARCO, A GROUP THAT -- I THINK 16 IT'S R4 THAT TODD WAS -- LOEWENSTEIN WAS PART OF. AND 17 THEN THERE WAS DOCUMENTATION -- PEOPLE WERE TALKING
18 ABOUT OTHER ONES THAT I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS OF. 19 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF SEEING
20 THE ACTUAL FPPC COMPLAINT THAT ARNETTE TRAVIS FILED
21 AGAINST STEVE SAMMARCO?
22 A. NO. ACTUALLY, I NEVER READ THAT --
23 Q. I THOUGHT --
24 A. -- THAT I RECALL.
25 Q. -- YOU JUST TESTIFIED TO THAT.
55 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. NO. I SAID ABOUT HEARING ABOUT IT AND TALKING
2 ABOUT IT.
3 Q. OKAY.
4 A. I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE DETAILS, ONLY HEARD
5 WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK I'VE
6 ACTUALLY SAID ANY -- SEEN ANY SPECIFIC ONE THAT I
7 RECALL.

021318.txt
8 Q. WHAT ABOUT THE R4 COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED
9 AGAINST TODD LOEWENSTEIN AND R4, DID YOU SEE THAT
10 COMPLAINT?
11 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.
12 Q. OKAY.
13 A. I DON'T RECALL IT.
14 Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO MARK AS EXHIBIT 3 --
15 ATTACH TO THE TRANSCRIPT -- A ONE-PAGE LETTER. I'LL
16 HAND IT TO YOUR ATTORNEY. IT'S DATED MARCH 5, 2015.
17 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
18 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
19 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 3 FOR
20 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LOOKING AT
22 THAT ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT, MR. VOISEY, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS 23 BEFORE?
24 A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
25 Q. OKAY. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF
56 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THIS COMPLAINT TO THE FPPC?
2 A. NOT DIRECTLY.

021318.txt
3 Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, "NOT DIRECTLY"? INDIRECTLY?
4 A. IF I HAD PROVIDED INFORMATION FOR SOMEBODY
5 THAT ASKED FOR SOMETHING, NOT KNOWING IT WAS GOING FOR 6 AN FPPC COMPLAINT.
7 Q. WELL, DID YOU PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION FOR
8 ANYBODY TO FILE AN FPPC --
9 A. I DON'T RECALL.
10 Q. LET ME FINISH.
11 A. SORRY.
12 Q. DID YOU PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO ANYBODY TO
13 ASSIST THEM IN PREPARING AN FPPC COMPLAINT AGAINST R4? 14 A. NOT THAT I RECALL AT ALL.
15 Q. EVER -- DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF SIGNING
16 THIS -- THIS DOCUMENT DATED MARCH 5, 2015?
17 A. NO.
18 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF TYPING
19 IT?
20 A. NO.
21 Q. OKAY. DID YOU -- DID YOU WORK ON THE
22 CHRISTIAN HORVATH CAMPAIGN?
23 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE TERM "WORK ON" AS
24 VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS.
25 Q. BY MR. COLIN: DID YOU SUPPORT
57

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 CHRISTIAN HORVATH IN HIS DISTRICT 3 COUNCIL RACE?
2 A. I AM IN FAVOR OF HIM. I -- HE -- HE'S NOT MY
3 COUNCILMAN; BUT AS FAR AS HIS CAMPAIGN AND WHAT HE WAS 4 STANDING FOR, YES.
5 Q. DID YOU HELP OUT? DID YOU DO ANY POSTINGS?
6 ANY FLIERS? DID YOU CANVAS THE DISTRICT, ANYTHING OF
7 THAT SORT?
8 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; COMPOUND.
9 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
10 THE WITNESS: YEAH. THE ONLY THING THAT I --
11 THAT I RECALL I WORKED ON WAS KNOCKING ON DOORS --
12 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY.
13 A. -- A COUPLE OF DAYS IN DISTRICT 3.
14 Q. OKAY. DID YOU DISTRIBUTE ANY MAILERS OR
15 FLIERS THAT WERE PREPARED BY HIS COMPLAINT --
16 A. NO.
17 Q. -- BY HIS CAMPAIGN?
18 A. NO -- EXCEPT FOR DOOR KNOCKING.
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. IF THERE WAS A FLIER ASSOCIATED WITH THAT,

021318.txt
21 WE -- WE GAVE IT TO THE PEOPLE OR LEFT IT ON THEIR
22 DOORS.
23 Q. DO YOU RECALL PASSING OUT A FLIER TO PEOPLE AS
24 YOU CANVASSED THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN DISTRICT 3?
25 A. YEAH, YES.
58 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY.
2 MR. HERTZ: I'LL JUST INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION
3 ON RELEVANCY GROUNDS, BUT YOU CAN KEEP THE ANSWER.
4 Q. BY MR. COLIN: AND WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT
5 LEARNING OF THE FPPC COMPLAINTS, THE ONE DIRECTED TO
6 STEVE SAMMARCO AND R4, TODD LOEWENSTEIN THAT YOU
7 MENTIONED, DID YOU EVER SEE ANY DOCUMENTS OR ANY
8 STIPULATIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE RESOLVED BY 9 THE FPPC?
10 A. IN THE NEWSPAPER, RIGHT, IT WAS REPORTED.
11 Q. OTHER THAN ANYTHING THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN
12 A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE THAT TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE
13 RESOLUTION WAS, DID YOU ACTUALLY SEE ANY DOCUMENTS? ANY 14 STIPULATIONS? ANYTHING OF THAT SORT?
15 A. NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

021318.txt
16 Q. DO YOU KNOW A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF
17 MICHAEL CAHALAN?
18 A. NO.
19 Q. DO YOU KNOW RICHARD OR RICK SCHMIDT?
20 A. NO.
21 Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INTRODUCED BY A GENTLEMAN
22 NAMED RICK SCHMIDT?
23 A. I DON'T --
24 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION. DO YOU MEAN
25 "INTRODUCED TO"?
59 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. BY MR. COLIN: INTRODUCED TO.
2 A. BY SOMEBODY ELSE?
3 Q. YES.
4 A. I DON'T RECALL.
5 Q. OKAY. DID -- DID YOU ASSIST IN ANY WAY IN
6 THE NO ON C CAMPAIGN?
7 A. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER IF I DID DOOR KNOCKING
8 FOR IT. I -- SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS YES.
9 Q. OKAY.

021318.txt
10 A. I HELPED TO RECRUIT PEOPLE TO DO DOOR
11 KNOCKING. I DON'T RECALL IF I ACTUALLY DID ANY MYSELF. 12 Q. OKAY.
13 A. I WAS KIND OF BUSY WITH OTHER THINGS.
14 Q. OKAY. AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU HELPED TO
15 RECRUIT PEOPLE TO DO DOOR KNOCKING?
16 A. ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE. I WAS TALKING TO
17 FRIENDS AND SAYING -- AND ASKING THEM TO SHOW UP FOR AN 18 EVENT TO GO DOOR KNOCKING.
19 Q. OKAY. DID THE NO ON C CAMPAIGN HAVE AN
20 OFFICE?
21 A. YES.
22 Q. AND WHERE WAS THAT OFFICE?
23 A. HARBOR DRIVE.
24 Q. WAS THAT IN THE BAY CLUB FACILITY?
25 A. IS THAT WHAT'S DOWNSTAIRS THERE? YEAH,
60 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THERE'S A GYM DOWNSTAIRS, YEAH. YEAH, YES.
2 Q. AND DID YOU GO TO THAT OFFICE AT ALL?
3 A. I WAS THERE, I BELIEVE, TWICE.
4 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS YOUR REASON -- REASON FOR

021318.txt
5 BEING IN THE NO ON C OFFICE?
6 A. TO LEARN MORE --
7 Q. OKAY.
8 A. -- AND TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING I COULD DO
9 TO HELP WITH THE LIMITED TIME THAT I HAD.
10 Q. AND WHEN YOU WERE THERE IN THAT OFFICE, HOW
11 DID YOU KNOW THAT OFFICE WAS THERE?
12 A. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO -- I WOULD HAVE
13 BEEN SENT AN E-MAIL BY THE CAMPAIGN.
14 Q. OKAY. AND YOU SHOWED UP TWICE AND YOU WANTED
15 TO LEARN MORE. DID YOU TAKE ANY LAWN SIGNS WITH YOU TO 16 POST IN ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS?
17 A. YES.
18 Q. OKAY. WHO GAVE YOU THOSE LAWN SIGNS?
19 A. NOBODY.
20 Q. YOU JUST TOOK THEM?
21 A. THEY WERE STANDING THERE AND WE WERE TOLD TO
22 TAKE -- TO FEEL FREE TO TAKE THEM.
23 Q. OKAY. WHO TOLD YOU TO FEEL FREE TO TAKE THEM?
24 A. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. HONESTLY, I DON'T
25 REMEMBER WHO THE SPEECH WAS GIVEN BY.
61 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 Q. WAS IT A SPEECH THAT YOU RECALL?
2 A. YEAH.
3 Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO MARK AS EXHIBIT 4 TWO
4 PHOTOGRAPHS AND SHOW THEM TO YOUR ATTORNEY FIRST AND ASK 5 YOU TO LOOK AT THEM.
6 (THE AFOREMENTIONED PHOTOGRAPHS
7 WERE MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
8 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 4 FOR
9 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
10 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. ARE THOSE PHOTOS OF YOU
11 AND ARNETTE TRAVIS?
12 A. YES.
13 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHO TOOK THOSE PHOTOS?
14 A. I DO NOT.
15 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THOSE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN?
16 A. THESE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE AT R/10.
17 Q. R/10 RESTAURANT IN THE HARBOR?
18 A. CORRECT.
19 Q. OKAY. AND IN THE PHOTOGRAPH OF -- OF YOU --
20 THAT WAS TAKEN OF YOU, YOU'RE WEARING A LITTLE LABEL ON 21 YOUR -- ON YOUR SHIRT?
22 A. YEAH.

021318.txt
23 Q. IT SAYS "REDONDO UNITED." WHAT WAS
24 REDONDO UNITED?
25 A. REDONDO -- ACTUALLY, THAT WAS INCORRECT.
62 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. HERTZ: WELL, FIRST JUST ANSWER WHAT WAS
2 REDONDO UNITED, AND THEN YOU CAN EXPLAIN.
3 THE WITNESS: YEAH. REDONDO UNITED WAS A
4 GROUP SET UP BY CHRIS CAGLE, I BELIEVE, AND WAS
5 INFORMATION FOR -- IT WAS JUST SUPPOSED TO BE A SITE
6 THAT I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT AND TO SHARE INFORMATION.
7 BASICALLY, A REPOST PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO GET A SINGLE
8 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE -- THE 9 WATERFRONT AND THOSE AGAINST IT, SO THEY COULD SEE AND 10 CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN.
11 THE INCORRECT PART WAS THAT I WAS PART OF A
12 VERY SMALL GROUP, VOICES OF WATERFRONT VITALITY, WHICH 13 IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRINTED; AND I DO REMEMBER
14 GETTING THERE AND SAYING, "THIS IS WRONG," AND THEN THEY 15 SAID, "OH, DON'T WORRY. IT'S JUST --" YOU KNOW, "THAT'S 16 FINE TO REPRESENT YOU --" "YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT
17 GROUP," AND I WAS. AND I DID TALK TO CHRIS CAGLE ABOUT

021318.txt
18 RESTARTING THAT UP, AND HE HAD DISMISSED THAT AS
19 SOMETHING HE WAS NO LONGER INVOLVED WITH, SO IT WAS AN 20 IDEA AND A CONCEPT THAT WE DIDN'T CONTINUE TO DISCUSS. 21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. BUT KNOWING THAT VOICES
22 UNITED WAS AN INCORRECT OR -- OR WRONG LABEL, YOU STILL 23 WENT AHEAD AND PUT THAT STICKER ON YOUR SHIRT AND -- AND 24 WORE IT AT THE R10 RESTAURANT, CORRECT?
25 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; ARGUMENTATIVE.
63 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
2 Q. BY MR. COLIN: "REDONDO UNITED."
3 A. NO FURTHER ANSWER ON IT. I -- I WORE IT. IT
4 HAD MY NAME ON IT.
5 Q. OKAY.
6 A. I WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH MY NAME BEING ON
7 THERE AND -- YEAH.
8 Q. AND ARNETTE TRAVIS IN ONE OF THE PHOTOS IS
9 ALSO WEARING A STICKER ON HER -- ON HER BLOUSE, CORRECT? 10 A. CORRECT.
11 Q. AND IS THAT -- CAN YOU READ WHAT THE STICKER

021318.txt
12 SAYS?
13 A. THE ACRONYM C.R.E.W., C-R-E-W.
14 Q. OKAY. WERE YOU A PART OF THAT ORGANIZATION?
15 A. I WAS NOT.
16 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT ORGANIZATION WAS?
17 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS MAINLY TO EDUCATE AND GIVE
18 PEOPLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WATERFRONT AND GIVE THEM 19 TOURS OF THE AREA AND EXPLAINING WHAT WAS GOING ON.
20 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO FORMED THAT GROUP?
21 A. I DO NOT HAVE A CLUE. OKAY.
22 Q. OKAY. DID YOU EVER ATTEND ANY OF THEIR
23 FUNCTIONS?
24 A. NO, NOT THAT I RECALL.
25 Q. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE -- NOW, HAVE WE
64 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 IDENTIFIED ALL THE SHARED INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED 2 THAT -- THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE BINDERS? WE HAVE GOT 3 ALL OF THE PAGES, CORRECT? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT 4 YOU RECALL RECEIVING THAT YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY IDENTIFIED 5 TODAY THAT YOU BELIEVE WAS A PART OF THE SHARED
6 INFORMATION FROM THE DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS?

021318.txt
7 MR. HERTZ: IS THE QUESTION INCLUSIVE OF
8 MATERIALS THAT THE WITNESS MAY HAVE DISCARDED EARLIER -- 9 MR. COLIN: WHATEVER HE --
10 MR. HERTZ: -- BEFORE THE LAWSUIT?
11 MR. COLIN: WHATEVER HE MENTIONED.
12 MR. HERTZ: OKAY.
13 THE WITNESS: SO AS MENTIONED, THAT LOOKS LIKE
14 THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SAVED AND AVAILABLE --
15 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY.
16 A. AND I SEEM TO RECALL MOST OF THAT LOOKS LIKE
17 WHAT'S THERE.
18 Q. OKAY. YOU ALSO SAID THAT SOME OF THE
19 DEFENDANTS WERE WORKING TOGETHER. TELL ME WHICH ACTUAL 20 DEFENDANTS YOU SAW WORKING TOGETHER ON -- ON CAMPAIGNS. 21 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AS
22 TO THE TERM "YOU SAW."
23 MR. COLIN: OKAY.
24 MR. HERTZ: YOU MEAN IN -- IN THE -- IN THE
25 FLESH IN FRONT OF HIM?
65 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 Q. BY MR. COLIN: YEAH. LET ME -- YEAH.
2 DID YOU -- DESCRIBE FOR ME THOSE OCCASIONS
3 WHERE YOU WERE PERSONALLY PRESENT WHEN YOU SAW ANY OF 4 THE DEFENDANTS WORKING TOGETHER ON CAMPAIGNS IN 2017. 5 A. IN LATE 2016, EARLY 2- -- ACTUALLY, LATE 2016,
6 I DID SEE THE DEFENDANTS, MINUS WAYNE CRAIG, AT SLIP BAR 7 AND RESTAURANT ON THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK, ALONG
8 WITH JIM LIGHT, DISCUSSING STRATEGY AND WHAT THEY WERE 9 GOING TO BE WORKING ON, AND I DID OVERHEAR IT. I WOULD 10 SAY I WAS ACTUALLY WITHIN EARSHOT, BUT I COULD NOT STAY 11 AND HEAR THE WHOLE CONVERSATION.
12 Q. AND THEY WERE PLANNING STRATEGY?
13 A. YES.
14 Q. WHO WAS THERE -- LET ME BE SURE THAT WE'RE
15 REALLY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHO YOU'RE IDENTIFYING. TELL ME 16 BY NAME --
17 A. NILS NEHRENHEIM.
18 Q. HOLD ON. LET ME FINISH.
19 A. I THOUGHT YOU WERE.
20 Q. IDENTIFY BY NAME EACH OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT
21 YOU SAW THERE AT THE RESTAURANT -- AT THE SLIP BAR
22 RESTAURANT ENGAGING IN STRATEGY.
23 A. NILS NEHRENHEIM, BILL BRAND, MARTIN HOLMES,
24 AND JIM LIGHT.

021318.txt
25 Q. OKAY. AND HOW FAR WERE YOU SEATED FROM THEM,
66 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 IF YOU WERE SEATED FROM THEM, WHEN YOU HEARD THEM
2 TALKING?
3 A. ABOUT THE DISTANCE THAT YOU AND I ARE RIGHT
4 HERE, AND MY BACK WAS TO THEM.
5 Q. GIVE ME YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.
6 A. SO THAT WOULD BE SEVEN FEET.
7 Q. OKAY. AND WERE YOU WITH ANYBODY THAT -- WAS
8 IT IN THE EVENING OR WAS IT IN THE DAYTIME? OR --
9 A. IT WAS IN THE EVENING.
10 Q. OKAY. APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME?
11 A. 9:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
12 Q. OKAY. AND DO YOU RECALL IF IT WAS A WEEKEND
13 DAY OR A WEEKDAY?
14 A. WEEKDAY.
15 Q. DO YOU RECALL THE EXACT DAY?
16 A. NO.
17 Q. OKAY. AND YOU WERE SEVEN FEET FROM THEM WITH
18 YOUR BACK TO THEM, AND YOU SAW NILS, BILL BRAND,
19 MARTIN HOLMES, AND JIM LIGHT. TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU

021318.txt
20 RECALL YOU HEARD FROM EACH INDIVIDUAL -- WELL, LET'S DO 21 IT THIS WAY. WHAT DID YOU HEAR NILS NEHRENHEIM SAY WHEN 22 YOU OVERHEARD THEIR CONVERSATIONS?
23 A. AT THAT POINT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEIR
24 VOICES, SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHO SAID WHAT.
25 Q. OKAY.
67 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. WHAT I DID HEAR --
2 Q. OKAY. WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH IT.
3 A. OKAY.
4 Q. SO IF YOU CAN'T RECALL WHAT NILS NEHRENHEIM
5 SPECIFICALLY SAID, LET ME KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T RECALL. 6 SO CAN YOU RECALL WHAT NILS NEHRENHEIM SAID?
7 A. SPECIFICALLY, NO.
8 Q. OKAY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT BILL BRAND SAID
9 SPECIFICALLY?
10 A. NO.
11 Q. AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT MARTIN HOLMES SAID
12 SPECIFICALLY?
13 A. NO.

021318.txt
14 Q. AND CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT
15 JIM LIGHT SAID?
16 A. NO.
17 Q. WERE YOU RECORDING THE CONVERSATION?
18 A. NO.
19 Q. HAD YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK AT THAT
20 RESTAURANT BEFORE THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE?
21 A. NO.
22 Q. AND HOW LONG DID YOU OVERHEAR THIS
23 CONVERSATION AS IT TOOK PLACE?
24 A. ABOUT 15 TO 20 MINUTES.
25 Q. OKAY. AND WERE YOU THERE BY YOURSELF?
68 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. YES.
2 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU RECALL, IN
3 GENERAL, HEARING FROM THIS GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS?
4 A. TALKING ABOUT SUBMISSION OF PAPERS TO RUN FOR
5 COUNCIL DISTRICT 1, AND, SPECIFICALLY, "HOW WE WILL
6 CONQUER THIS AND BE ABLE TO --" AND I WILL ADMIT I AM 7 PARAPHRASING BECAUSE I COULD NOT BE ABLE TO SPECIFICALLY 8 SAY WORD FOR WORD, BUT "HOW WE WILL WORK TOGETHER TO

021318.txt
9 TURN REDONDO AROUND."
10 Q. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU -- DID YOU OVERHEAR
11 ANYTHING ELSE?
12 A. NO.
13 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU HEARD THIS IN LATE 2016.
14 AT THAT POINT IN TIME, DO YOU KNOW IF NILS NEHRENHEIM 15 WAS AN OFFICIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE DISTRICT 1 SEAT IN 16 REDONDO BEACH?
17 A. NO.
18 Q. AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU CLAIM YOU HEARD
19 THIS CONVERSATION, DO YOU KNOW IF BILL BRAND WAS A
20 DECLARED CANDIDATE FOR THE MAYORAL SEAT IN
21 REDONDO BEACH?
22 A. DECLARED? NO.
23 Q. OKAY.
24 A. I DID KNOW THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN RUNNING.
25 Q. OKAY. AND WITH RESPECT TO MARTIN HOLMES
69 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 AND -- AND JIM LIGHT, DID THEY EXPRESS ANY INTEREST IN 2 RUNNING FOR OFFICE, THAT YOU OVERHEARD?

021318.txt
3 A. NO -- WELL, AGAIN, I KNOW IT WASN'T -- NOT
4 FROM JIM LIGHT. I DID HEAR THE CONSIDER -- I HEARD A
5 CONVERSATION, "WELL, I WOULD HAVE RUN," WHICH I PRESUME 6 WAS MARTIN'S VOICE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU THAT WITH 7 CERTAINTY.
8 Q. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY LATE 2016 WHEN YOU WERE AT
9 THE SLIP BAR RESTAURANT, CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC WHEN 10 IN LATE 2016 YOU HEARD THIS CONVERSATION?
11 A. BETWEEN OCTOBER AND DECEMBER.
12 Q. OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER AT THAT POINT
13 IN TIME, WHEN YOU HEARD THIS CONVERSATION, THE CITY
14 CLERK HAD EVEN ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS THAT 15 NOMINATION PAPERS WERE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY 16 POTENTIAL CANDIDATE TO PICK UP?
17 A. NO. I WASN'T FOLLOWING IT THAT MUCH.
18 Q. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF
19 THE INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU OVERHEARD THAT EVENING WERE 20 EVEN CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE -- CORRECT? -- OFFICIALLY 21 CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE IN REDONDO BEACH?
22 A. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
23 Q. OKAY. AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU HEARD PEOPLE
24 MAKING SPEECHES. OKAY? WHEN DID YOU -- HOW MANY
25 SPEECHES DID YOU ATTEND WHERE YOU HEARD ANY OF THE
70

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DEFENDANTS GIVING SPEECHES EITHER ABOUT THEIR CANDIDACY 2 OR ABOUT MEASURE C?
3 A. MOST OF THEM I WATCHED RECORDINGS OF.
4 Q. OKAY.
5 A. AND IN PERSON, I KNOW I SAW SOME AT CITY
6 COUNCIL MEETINGS BY NILS NEHRENHEIM.
7 Q. WHERE HE ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL?
8 A. WHEN HE ANNOUNCED HIS RUNNING FOR CANDIDACY,
9 YES. THERE IS, ACTUALLY, HIS -- HE WENT UP THERE AND
10 OFFICIALLY SPOKE AT THAT.
11 Q. OKAY. WAS THAT DURING THE PUBLIC
12 PARTICIPATION PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA?
13 A. CORRECT.
14 Q. OKAY. OTHER THAN SEEING NILS NEHRENHEIM
15 ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, 16 DID YOU ATTEND ANY OTHER EVENTS WHERE YOU SAW HIM -- 17 WHEN YOU PERSONALLY SAW HIM SPEAKING OR GIVING SPEECHES? 18 A. NO, NOT THAT I RECALL.
19 Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S GO OVER TO BILL BRAND.
20 HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU PERSONALLY ATTEND AN EVENT WHERE 21 BILL BRAND WAS GIVING A SPEECH?

021318.txt
22 A. I SAW HIM MAKE TWO INFORMAL SPEECHES --
23 APPROXIMATELY TWO, AND I HONESTLY DO NOT REMEMBER THE 24 SPECIFICS OF THE EVENT. IT WAS AN INFORMAL AS PART OF 25 AN INTRODUCTION TO FOLKS THAT WERE THERE AS A CITY.
71 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. TO WHAT? AN INTRODUCTION TO --
2 A. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CITY. IT WAS
3 JUST -- HE WAS INTRODUCING HIMSELF AND ADDED THE -- YOU 4 KNOW, HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE MAYOR AND MAKING A FEW
5 WORDS, BUT I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS OF IT.
6 Q. OKAY. WHEN -- WHEN DID THESE INFORMAL
7 SPEECHES TAKE PLACE?
8 A. THEY'RE PROBABLY FEBRUARY 2017 TIME FRAME,
9 SOMEWHERE WITHIN THERE.
10 Q. WHEN YOU SAY "PROBABLY," IS THAT YOUR BEST
11 ESTIMATE?
12 A. YES, IT IS.
13 Q. AND WHERE DID THESE SPEECHES TAKE PLACE?
14 A. AS MENTIONED, I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY.
15 Q. AND HOW MANY SPEECHES DID YOU HEAR?

021318.txt
16 A. APPROXIMATELY TWO.
17 Q. OKAY. WAS HE ADDRESSING HIS SPEECHES TO CIVIC
18 GROUPS SUCH AS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR SOMEBODY ELSE 19 OR R.O.W.?
20 A. NO. IT WAS JUST A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WERE
21 GATHERED FOR SOME REASON. IT'S SOME SORT OF A CHARITY 22 THING OR SOMETHING OR RELATED TO A FUNDRAISING THING 23 THAT I SEEM TO RECALL, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE DETAILS. 24 I JUST KNOW THAT I SAW HIM SPEAKING BECAUSE IT WAS THE 25 FIRST TIME I HAD ACTUALLY SEEN HIM OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL 72 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 REALLY SPEAKING AND, YOU KNOW, HE WAS A, YOU KNOW, VERY 2 GRACIOUS SPEAKER.
3 Q. WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU SAW HIM SPEAKING THESE
4 TWO TIMES AND YOU SAID THAT PEOPLE WERE GATHERED FOR
5 CHARITIES OR MAYBE IT WAS FOR FUNDRAISING, WAS IT
6 FUNDRAISING FOR MR. BRAND OR FOR THESE OTHER
7 ORGANIZATIONS?
8 A. IT WAS NONPOLITICAL.
9 Q. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAMES OF THE
10 GROUPS?

021318.txt
11 A. NO.
12 Q. NOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST
13 TIME YOU HAD SEEN HIM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
14 SPEAKING. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A FRIEND OF
15 BILL BRAND?
16 A. NO.
17 Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER SAID ANYTHING AT CITY
18 COUNCIL MEETINGS DEROGATORY TO HIM?
19 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER HAVE. THAT'S TYPICALLY
20 NOT MY PERSONALITY.
21 Q. OKAY. EITHER IN WRITING OR -- OR VERBALLY?
22 A. NOT THAT I CAN EVER RECALL.
23 Q. WELL, HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN ANY LETTERS TO THE
24 EDITOR OR ANY STATE AGENCIES WHERE YOU -- WHERE YOU
25 WROTE THINGS DEROGATORY ABOUT MR. BRAND?
73 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I WOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING IS CONSIDERED
2 DEROGATORY.
3 Q. OKAY.
4 A. I DID WRITE A LETTER TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION

021318.txt
5 THINKING THAT HE WOULD NOT BE AN IDEAL CANDIDATE BECAUSE 6 OF HIS BIAS ON ISSUES REGARDING THE COAST ALREADY.
7 Q. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU WRITE THAT LETTER?
8 A. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GUESS. EARLY --
9 MR. HERTZ: DON'T GUESS, BUT IF YOU CAN
10 ESTIMATE --
11 Q. BY MR. COLIN: YOUR BEST --
12 A. I ESTIMATE AROUND THE BEGINNING OF 2016.
13 Q. 2000 -- DID ANYBODY ASK YOU TO WRITE THAT
14 LETTER?
15 A. NO.
16 Q. DID ANYBODY ASSIST YOU IN WRITING THAT LETTER?
17 A. NO.
18 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR WRITING
19 THE LETTER?
20 A. THAT I HAD HEARD HE WAS GOING FOR A SEAT ON
21 THE COASTAL COMMISSION REPRESENTING OUR DISTRICT, I
22 GUESS.
23 Q. WHO TOLD YOU THAT BILL BRAND WAS ATTEMPTING TO
24 GAIN A SEAT ON THE COASTAL COMMISSION?
25 A. I HAD FOUND IT THROUGH A GOOGLE ALERT BECAUSE
74 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 I WAS FOLLOWING THINGS BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND IT 2 POPPED UP FROM SOME ARTICLE OR SOMETHING WRITTEN
3 SOMEWHERE.
4 Q. OKAY. DID YOU COORDINATE WRITING THAT LETTER
5 WITH LISA RODRIGUEZ OR WITH ERIKA SNOW ROBINSON?
6 A. NO.
7 Q. DO YOU KNOW THAT -- DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THOSE
8 TWO WOMEN ALSO SUBMITTED LETTERS TO THE COASTAL
9 COMMISSION CRITICIZING BILL BRAND RIGHT ABOUT THE SAME 10 TIME THAT YOU SENT YOUR LETTER?
11 A. I DID NOT.
12 Q. OKAY. HAD YOU EVER HEARD THAT THEY HAD
13 SUBMITTED LETTERS THAT WERE CRITICAL OF MR. BRAND AND 14 THAT THEY DIRECTED TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION?
15 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I DID BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE
16 I WAS VERY SOCIAL WITH THEM AT THAT POINT.
17 Q. WELL, ARE YOU VERY SOCIAL WITH THEM NOW?
18 A. NOT OVERLY.
19 Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU ACTUALLY SIGN THE LETTER
20 THAT YOU SENT OFF TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION?
21 A. I BELIEVE I SENT IT AS E-MAIL.
22 Q. AS AN E-MAIL, OKAY.
23 EXHIBIT 3 OR EXHIBIT 4, SO "5." EXHIBIT 4,

021318.txt
24 THOSE ARE THE PHOTOS --
25 MR. HERTZ: RIGHT.
75 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. COLIN: -- SO LET ME JUST WRITE ON HERE,
2 SO I'LL PUT IT UP.
3 Q. LET ME HAND YOUR ATTORNEY -- THIS IS A
4 TWO-PAGE LETTER --
5 A. OKAY.
6 Q. -- DATED JULY 30, 2014.
7 MS. ZIMMER: DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE?
8 MR. HERTZ: ARE WE MARKING THAT AS EXHIBIT 5?
9 MR. COLIN: EXHIBIT 5. THIS WILL BE
10 EXHIBIT 5.
11 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
12 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
13 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 5 FOR
14 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
15 Q. BY MR. COLIN: FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK YOU TO
16 LOOK AT PAGE 2. DID YOU SIGN THIS LETTER? IS THAT YOUR 17 SIGNATURE?

021318.txt
18 A. YES.
19 Q. AND DO YOU RECALL NOW IF YOU SENT IT BY E-MAIL
20 OR IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY SENT BY SNAIL MAIL?
21 A. ACTUALLY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS WAS SENT
22 BOTH THROUGH E-MAIL AND THROUGH SNAIL MAIL. I CAN TELL 23 THAT THAT SIGNATURE IS AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF MINE 24 THAT I PRINTED OFF --
25 Q. OKAY.
76 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. -- AND SENT IT WITH THIS SO THAT THE SAME
2 LETTER GOT THERE BOTH WAYS. IT MAY HAVE THROUGH AN
3 ATTACHMENT SENT TO THEM. I'M NOT -- I DON'T RECALL, BUT 4 I DO REMEMBER WRITING THIS LETTER.
5 Q. OKAY. AND BEFORE YOU WROTE THIS LETTER, DID
6 YOU DISCUSS THE LETTER WITH -- YOUR INTENTION TO SEND 7 THE LETTER WITH ANYBODY?
8 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.
9 Q. OKAY. AND YOU HAD NEVER MET BILL BRAND BEFORE
10 YOU DRAFTED THIS LETTER, CORRECT?
11 A. AS FAR AS KNOWING HIM, HAVE I EVER SHOOK HIS
12 HAND BEFORE THAT? I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER DID.

021318.txt
13 Q. OKAY. YOU NEVER MET HIM.
14 HAD YOU EVER TALKED TO HIM BEFORE YOU SENT
15 THIS LETTER?
16 A. NO.
17 Q. WERE YOU ASKED TO SEND THIS LETTER BY
18 FRED BRUNING?
19 A. NO.
20 Q. WERE YOU ASKED TO SEND THIS LETTER BY
21 MARNA SMELTZER?
22 A. NO.
23 Q. AND WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU
24 DECIDED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DRAFT THIS JULY 30TH, 25 2014 LETTER AND SEND IT OFF TO THE SENATE RULES
77 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 COMMITTEE?
2 A. YEAH. AGAIN, BECAUSE I FELT THAT HE WAS NOT
3 REPRESENTING WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ON THE COAST AND HAVING 4 PRE-BIAS, AND I FELT THAT HE HAS VERY -- VERY STRONGLY 5 OPPOSED ANY CHANGES AND THINGS THAT COULD GO ON THERE, 6 SO I JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE HE WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE TO BE

021318.txt
7 SOMEBODY THAT WAS GOING TO BE SITTING UP ON A
8 COMMISSION.
9 Q. IS STEVE ASPEL A FRIEND OF YOURS?
10 A. I DO KNOW HIM.
11 Q. DO YOU CONSIDER HIM A FRIEND?
12 A. SOMEWHAT. HE'S KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE.
13 Q. DID YOU SUPPORT HIM IN HIS ELECTION FOR MAYOR?
14 A. YES. I LIKED HIS CAMPAIGN.
15 Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU APPEAR ON ANY OF HIS
16 BROCHURES AS A SUPPORTER?
17 A. YES, I BELIEVE I DID.
18 Q. DID STEVE ASPEL ASK YOU TO SEND THIS LETTER TO
19 THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE?
20 A. NO. I DON'T EVEN THINK I KNEW STEVE AT THIS
21 POINT.
22 Q. IN 2014 YOU DIDN'T KNOW HIM?
23 A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, OTHER THAN -- I WOULD HAVE
24 MET HIM, I'M SURE, BASED ON HE WAS OUR COUNCILMAN FOR MY 25 DISTRICT AND THE MAYOR AT SOME POINT AROUND IN THERE. 78 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. WELL, WHEN DO YOU BELIEVE YOU FIRST MET

021318.txt
2 STEVE ASPEL?
3 A. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THE FIRST TIME I ACTUALLY
4 TALKED TO STEVE ASPEL AND, REALLY, WHAT I WOULD SAY GOT 5 HIS WAY OF THINKING WAS -- I DON'T HAVE A DATE ON IT, 6 BUT --
7 Q. TELL ME THE YEAR.
8 A. -- IT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF -- I HONESTLY
9 COULDN'T RIGHT NOW --
10 Q. OKAY.
11 A. -- BUT IT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE DROWNING
12 OF THE BOY THAT RAN INTO THE WATER. AND WE HAD A LOT OF 13 HELICOPTERS AND WE WERE STANDING UP ON THE ESPLANADE, 14 AND JUST REALIZED HE WAS A NICE LOCAL GUY, AND HERE HE 15 WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WATCHING WHAT WAS GOING 16 ON.
17 Q. BUT YOU DON'T RECALL THE YEAR, RIGHT?
18 A. I DO NOT.
19 Q. DID YOU EVER GET A REPLY FROM THE SENATE RULES
20 COMMITTEE ABOUT -- IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER THAT YOU 21 SENT?
22 A. I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER DID SEE ONE.
23 Q. IN THIS LETTER YOU -- YOU WRITE -- THIS IS
24 PARAGRAPH -- THE SECOND PARAGRAPH --
25 "I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF

021318.txt
79 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THE SOUTH BAY IN REDONDO BEACH,
2 CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PAST 15
3 YEARS" --
4 A. UH-HUH.
5 Q. -- "AND HAVE VERY CLOSELY
6 FOLLOWED MANY OF THE VARIOUS
7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS, EFFORTS AND
8 GROUPS."
9 HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN REDONDO BEACH?
10 A. REDONDO BEACH, FOR FIVE YEARS -- FIVE, SIX
11 YEARS NOW.
12 Q. OKAY. IN HERE IT SAYS:
13 "I DO NOT KNOW HIM PERSONALLY,
14 NOR HAVE I EVEN MET HIM THAT I CAN
15 RECALL."
16 WAS THAT TRUE WHEN YOU WROTE THAT?
17 A. YES.
18 Q. OKAY. IN -- IN -- WERE YOU TRUTHFUL IN THIS
19 LETTER WHEN YOU SENT IT?

021318.txt
20 A. YES.
21 Q. OKAY. AND HAVE YOU WRITTEN LETTERS TO THE
22 EDITOR TO ANY OF THE OTHER LOCAL NEWSPAPERS?
23 "EASY READER"? "BEACH REPORTER"?
24 A. OH, I HAVE, YES.
25 Q. OKAY. AND IN THOSE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR THAT
80 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 YOU'VE SENT, HAVE YOU BEEN TRUTHFUL IN THOSE LETTERS? 2 A. TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE TRUTH, YES.
3 Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
4 NOW, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE LATE 2016
5 CONVERSATION THAT YOU OVERHEARD BETWEEN NILS,
6 BILL BRAND, MARTIN, AND -- AND JIM. WERE THERE ANY
7 OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU OVERHEARD WHERE THEY
8 WERE -- WERE ANY OF THAT -- WHERE ANY OF THEM WERE
9 PRESENT AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGY?
10 A. NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
11 Q. OKAY. AND THE SPEECHES THAT YOU'VE
12 IDENTIFIED, HAVE YOU -- HAVE YOU RECALLED ANY OTHERS, 13 OTHER THAN THE TWO WHERE YOU SAW BILL AT A -- AT A
14 CHARITY FUNCTION, WITH RESPECT TO BILL BRAND?

021318.txt
15 A. THE LIVE ONES, NO.
16 Q. OKAY. AND LET'S TALK ABOUT WAYNE CRAIG. HAVE
17 YOU BEEN PRESENT WHERE MR. CRAIG, YOU KNOW, GAVE ANY 18 SPEECHES THAT YOU WERE PRESENT AT?
19 A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
20 Q. AND HAVE YOU BEEN PRESENT AT ANY SPEECHES
21 WHERE YOU OVERHEARD MARTIN HOLMES TALKING ABOUT
22 ELECTIONS IN REDONDO?
23 A. ELECTIONS, NO.
24 Q. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF WATERFRONT
25 DEVELOPMENT?
81 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. YES.
2 Q. OKAY. AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN
3 PERSONALLY PRESENT WHEN MARTIN HOLMES GAVE SPEECHES?
4 A. I BELIEVE TWO.
5 Q. OKAY. WHEN DID -- WHEN DID YOU ATTEND THEM?
6 THE WITNESS: DIDN'T WE DO -- AS FAR AS THE
7 RELEVANCE?
8 MR. HERTZ: YEAH. HE -- YOU CAN STILL ANSWER.

021318.txt
9 THE WITNESS: OKAY. YEAH. I JUST DON'T WANT
10 TO WASTE TIME ON IT.
11 WHEN DID I -- THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?
12 Q. BY MR. COLIN: WHEN -- WHEN DID THESE SPEECHES
13 TAKE PLACE THAT YOU OVERHEARD?
14 A. ONE WAS THE MEETING WE DISCUSSED EARLIER,
15 WHICH I BELIEVE WAS LATE 2016.
16 Q. RIGHT. IS THAT THE R.O.W. MEETING?
17 A. YES.
18 Q. OKAY.
19 A. THEY WERE BOTH R.O.W. MEETINGS.
20 Q. LET'S GO BACK AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE
21 TIMELINE.
22 DECEMBER OF 2015 OR EARLY 2016?
23 A. I BELIEVE IT'S QUITE A WHILE AGO AND I WASN'T
24 TRYING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THIS --
25 Q. OKAY.
82 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. -- SO I'M GOING TO SAY I BELIEVE IT WAS 2016,
2 BUT I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT.
3 Q. EARLY, MID OR LATE 2000 --

021318.txt
4 A. IT WAS DURING THE WINTER RAINY SEASON, SO I
5 BELIEVE IT WAS LATE 2016.
6 Q. LATE 2016?
7 A. YEAH, DECEMBER 2016.
8 Q. OKAY.
9 A. IT SEEMS TO BE RECALLING, BASED ON OTHER
10 THINGS I'M SEEING HERE, BUT I'M ONLY TRYING TO RECALL 11 THEM WITHOUT LOOKING AT A CALENDAR.
12 Q. OKAY.
13 A. I WASN'T THAT INTERESTED IN THIS AT THAT
14 POINT.
15 Q. OKAY. DECEMBER OF 2016, HOW MANY SPEECHES DID
16 YOU HEAR, TWO?
17 A. SO I SAW ONE -- ONE AROUND THEN, AND ANOTHER
18 TIME I SAW HIM SPEAKING TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHILE
19 WORKING ALONG THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK, MAYBE
20 JANUARY OF 2017 -- NO. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT RIGHT. 21 Q. OKAY. AT THE DECEMBER 2016 SPEECH, WHAT DID
22 YOU HEAR MARTIN HOLMES TALKING ABOUT?
23 A. OH, I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, BUT ABOUT
24 THE WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT AND THE CARE ACT.
25 Q. THE KING HARBOR CARE ACT?
83

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. CORRECT.
2 Q. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID?
3 A. I JUST SAID I DO NOT SPECIFICALLY.
4 Q. OKAY. WELL, GENERALLY, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT
5 HE SAID?
6 A. IT WAS ABOUT HIM BEING AGAINST IT AND WHAT I
7 BELIEVE WERE INCORRECT FACTS, THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 8 THE NUMBERS, THE BUSINESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT; BUT, 9 SPECIFICALLY, I COULD NOT TELL YOU.
10 Q. OKAY. AND WERE THERE OTHER DEFENDANTS WHO
11 WERE PRESENT AT THAT DECEMBER 2016 MEETING THAT YOU JUST 12 REFERENCED?
13 A. I BELIEVE NILS WAS THERE.
14 Q. DID YOU SEE HIM? OR ARE YOU --
15 A. I BELIEVE -- I BELIEVE HE WAS, AND FROM
16 WHAT -- AND THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THAT I THINK I SAW 17 HIM THERE, BUT I WASN'T LOOKING SPECIFICALLY.
18 Q. OKAY. DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR VIDEOS
19 OF THE SPEECH THAT MARTIN HOLMES GAVE?
20 A. DID I? NO.
21 Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU SPEAK WITH NILS NEHRENHEIM

021318.txt
22 AT THAT DECEMBER 2016 SPEECH?
23 A. NO.
24 Q. DID YOU SEE MR. NILS NEHRENHEIM GIVE A SPEECH
25 AT THAT -- AT THAT EVENT?
84 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I DON'T RECALL --
2 Q. OKAY.
3 A. -- SEEING THAT.
4 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE SECOND TIME YOU SAW
5 MARTIN HOLMES GIVE A SPEECH, OR HE WAS WALKING WITH
6 PEOPLE NEAR THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK?
7 A. ON THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK IN FRONT OF
8 NAJA'S.
9 Q. WERE YOU PART OF THE GROUP THAT WAS WALKING
10 WITH HIM?
11 A. NO. I WAS WALKING MY BIKE WITH MY DAUGHTER.
12 Q. AND HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU OVERHEAR NILS -- OR
13 MARTIN HOLMES AS HE WAS GIVING THE SPEECH TO PEOPLE? 14 A. PROBABLY A MINUTE OR TWO.
15 Q. AND DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING HE SAID?
16 A. OH, ABOUT THE WATERFRONT -- WATERFRONT

021318.txt
17 REDEVELOPMENT, I REMEMBER, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE KEY
18 WORDS, AND I KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, SO I WASN'T 19 LISTENING.
20 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHO LINDA MOFFAT IS?
21 A. I KNOW THE NAME.
22 Q. DO YOU KNOW LINDA MOFFAT?
23 A. I DO NOT.
24 Q. HAVE YOU EVER MET HER?
25 A. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
85 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. HAVE YOU EVER COMMUNICATED WITH HER?
2 A. I DO NOT BELIEVE I EVER HAVE.
3 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU LISTED HER AS A
4 DEFENDANT IN YOUR LAWSUIT?
5 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; CALLS FOR A LEGAL
6 CONCLUSION.
7 BUT YOU CAN ANSWER.
8 THE WITNESS: SHE'S PART OF THE ORGANIZATION
9 THAT IS PART OF THIS; AND TO BE A FAIR LAWSUIT, IT
10 SHOULD INCLUDE HER, I BELIEVE.

021318.txt
11 Q. BY MR. COLIN: WHAT ORGANIZATION ARE YOU
12 REFERRING TO?
13 A. BRAND FOR MAYOR.
14 Q. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SUING HER IN HER CAPACITY AS
15 TREASURER FOR THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE?
16 A. TREASURER FOR THAT, YEAH.
17 Q. OKAY. DID YOUR EVER SEE LINDA MOFFAT
18 PARTICIPATE IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF ANY 19 OF THE DEFENDANTS?
20 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE TERM "POLITICAL
21 ACTIVITIES" AS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS.
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: RALLIES. ANY RALLIES? ANY
23 SPEECHES? ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?
24 A. WITNESS? NO. PROMOTE AND ACTUALLY SEE? YES.
25 Q. OKAY. WHAT DOES SHE LOOK LIKE?
86 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
2 Q. WELL, WHEN YOU SAY SHE PROMOTED, DID SHE
3 PROMOTE?
4 A. ONLINE. ONLINE.
5 Q. OH, SHE PROMOTED ONLINE?

021318.txt
6 A. YES.
7 Q. OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SEE HER PROMOTE ONLINE?
8 A. I HAVE SEEN HER PROMOTING THE CAMPAIGNS FOR --
9 FOR BILL AND FOR RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT.
10 Q. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU SEE HER PROMOTE FOR BILL
11 AND -- I'M GOING TO -- WHEN YOU SAY RESCUE OUR
12 WATERFRONT, LET'S BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING 13 ABOUT. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT
14 GROUP THAT YOU ATTENDED THE INITIAL PUBLIC EVENTS AT IN 15 LATE 2015/EARLY 2016, OR ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE RESCUE 16 OUR WATERFRONT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE?
17 A. I THINK I ALREADY ESTABLISHED I DON'T KNOW
18 WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THAT --
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. -- AS FAR AS THE FORMAL TRANSITION OF THAT;
21 AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN FEBRUARY 2017 TO MARCH 2017 22 NUMEROUS ONLINE POSTS THAT WERE SENT THROUGH NEXTDOOR 23 WEBSITE -- NEXTDOOR.COM, AND -- AND THERE WAS A -- THERE 24 WAS SOMETHING ELSE. I RECALL HER NAME. OH, I'M
25 CONFUSING HER WITH ANOTHER ONE ON THAT ONE, YEAH. YEAH, 87 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 THAT'S ALL I BELIEVE I SAW ON HER. SHE WAS MENTIONED ON 2 NEXTDOOR.
3 Q. YOU SAID YOU WERE CONFUSING HER WITH SOMEBODY
4 ELSE. WHO WERE YOU CONFUSING HER WITH?
5 A. THE ADDITIONAL POST, THE CONSTANT INFORMATION.
6 SO I SAW SOME FROM LINDA, BUT THEN I SAW --
7 LYNDA WYCKOFF, I BELIEVE HER NAME IS, AND HER -- HER
8 POSTING. AND FOR A QUICK MOMENT, I WAS PICTURING THE
9 TWO OF THEM IN MY MIND BEING ONE AND THE SAME, BUT
10 THEY'RE -- THEY'RE DIFFERENT. BUT THE FIRST INITIAL
11 POST ON NEXTDOOR, I BELIEVE, WERE FROM LINDA MOFFAT THAT 12 I SAW, AND THEN I CONTINUED TO SEE NUMEROUS ONES FROM 13 LYNDA WYCKOFF.
14 Q. OKAY.
15 A. IS THAT RIGHT? HOPEFULLY, I HAVE THE NAME
16 RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW EITHER OF THE PEOPLE, THOUGH.
17 Q. YOU SAW LINDA MOFFAT POST SOMETHING ON
18 NEXTDOOR?
19 A. I BELIEVE I -- YEAH.
20 Q. DID YOU MAKE A -- DID YOU DO ANY KIND OF A --
21 TAKE ANY EFFORT TO PRESERVE WHAT IT WAS THAT SHE HAD 22 POSTED ON NEXTDOOR?
23 A. NO.

021318.txt
24 Q. WHAT DID SHE SAY ON NEXTDOOR, THAT YOU RECALL?
25 A. SHE WAS PROMOTING TO GO TO -- I BELIEVE IT WAS
88 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 PROMOTING TO GO TO THE -- TO THE WALK THAT WAS STARTING 2 IN FRONT OF THE CROWNE PLAZA ONE DAY.
3 Q. DID YOU REPLY TO ANYTHING THAT SHE HAD
4 PROMOTED ON NEXTDOOR?
5 A. I DON'T RECALL.
6 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHERE SHE LIVES? DO YOU
7 KNOW WHERE LINDA MOFFAT LIVES?
8 A. I DO NOT.
9 Q. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SAW HER DO THAT
10 LEADS YOU TO STATE THAT SHE PROMOTED FOR BILL BRAND AND 11 RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT OTHER THAN THE NEXTDOOR ENTRIES? 12 A. NOT THAT I RECALL.
13 Q. AND ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHERE YOU ATTENDED
14 EITHER A RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT MEETING OR YOU SAW MARTIN 15 GIVING A SPEECH IN FRONT OF NAJA'S OR YOU SAW BILL AT A 16 CHARITY FUNCTION, DO YOU HAVE RECOLLECTION OF EVER
17 SEEING LINDA MOFFAT FROM TIME TO TIME AT THOSE EVENTS? 18 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

021318.txt
19 YOU CAN ANSWER.
20 THE WITNESS: I -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE LOOKS
21 LIKE.
22 MR. COLIN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
23 MR. HERTZ: MR. COLIN, HOW ARE WE DOING ON
24 TIMING IN TERMS OF A LUNCH BREAK?
25 MR. COLIN: YOU WANT TO TAKE AN HOUR OUT FOR
89 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 LUNCH?
2 MR. HERTZ: I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO. I'LL
3 ASK THE WITNESS WHAT HIS PREFERENCE IS.
4 THE WITNESS: I NEED TO -- HOLD ON A SECOND.
5 (A DISCUSSION WAS HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
6 MR. COLIN: BACK ON THE RECORD.
7 WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE AN HOUR FOR
8 LUNCH AND THEN RECONVENE BACK AT 1:20.
9 THE WITNESS: SURE.
10 MR. HERTZ: THAT'S FINE.
11 MR. COLIN: OKAY.
12 (NILS NEHRENHEIM LEFT AND WAS NOT

021318.txt
13 PRESENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE
14 PROCEEDINGS.)
15 (AT 12:16 P.M., A RECESS WAS TAKEN
16 UNTIL 1:29 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)
17 * * *
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
90 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
2 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018, 1:29 P.M.
3 VOLUME I, AFTERNOON SESSION
4 * * *
5 6 MR. COLIN: BACK ON THE RECORD.
7

021318.txt
8 EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
9 BY MR. COLIN:
10 Q. MR. VOISEY, I WANTED TO ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO
11 EXHIBIT 4, THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE HAD YOU LOOK AT 12 EARLIER TODAY, AND LOOK AT THE PHOTO THAT'S TAKEN OF 13 YOU; AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE STICKER ON 14 YOUR SHIRT WHERE IT READS "CHRIS VOISEY, REDONDO
15 UNITED."
16 WHEN DID THAT -- WHEN DID THAT ORGANIZATION GO
17 OUT OF EXISTENCE?
18 A. I DON'T THINK IT REALLY, TRULY EVER CAME BACK
19 IN.
20 Q. WELL, WHEN --
21 A. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY DATES THAT IT
22 ACTUALLY WAS ACTIVE AND DOING THINGS.
23 Q. AND -- AND WERE YOU AN ADMINISTRATOR ON ANY
24 FACEBOOK PAGE FOR REDONDO UNITED?
25 A. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ONE -- I THINK I ADDED SO
91 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MANY, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE; BUT I DON'T

021318.txt
2 BELIEVE -- IT'S EASIER TO SAY THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I 3 AM BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS MEETING HIM AND TRYING 4 TO HELP COME UP WITH THE CONCEPT OF IT.
5 Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY "THEM," WHO ARE YOU REFERRING
6 TO?
7 A. WITH CHRIS AND -- WHO ELSE WAS TALKING ABOUT
8 THAT? THIS IS JOGGING MY MEMORY.
9 Q. CHRIS CAGLE?
10 A. CHRIS CAGLE. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE I WAS
11 TALKING TO ARNETTE ABOUT IT AT ONE POINT.
12 Q. DO YOU KNOW IF ARNETTE WAS --
13 A. BUT WE NEVER DID ANYTHING.
14 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF ARNETTE WAS ONE OF THE
15 ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FACEBOOK PAGE FOR REDONDO UNITED? 16 A. I DON'T KNOW.
17 Q. ALL RIGHT. THE PHOTOGRAPH IN FRONT OF YOU,
18 WHEN, APPROXIMATELY, WAS THAT TAKEN?
19 A. DURING THE CAMPAIGN.
20 Q. OKAY. GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE AS TO THE MONTH AND
21 YEAR.
22 A. SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE FEBRUARY THROUGH --
23 FEBRUARY 2017, MARCH -- OR MARCH.
24 Q. OKAY. IN 2017?
25 A. 2017.

021318.txt
92 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY. WERE YOU POSTING ANY -- ANY MESSAGES ON
2 THE REDONDO UNITED FACEBOOK PAGE AT ALL DURING THAT
3 PERIOD OF TIME -- WELL, LET'S START IN EARLY 2017.
4 FROM JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 7TH OF 2017, DID YOU
5 MAKE ANY POSTS?
6 A. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T RECALL EVEN IT GOING
7 ANYWHERE, SO I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
8 Q. OKAY.
9 A. WHETHER I COMMENTED ON SOMETHING IF SOMETHING
10 POSTED SOMETHING UP OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.
11 Q. I'LL HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT. I'M GOING TO
12 MARK THIS AS EXHIBIT 6. IT'S A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT.
13 IT'S A FACEBOOK PAGE FOR REDONDO UNITED, AND IT SHOWS 14 THAT IN JANUARY -- ON JANUARY 24, 2017, THERE WAS AN 15 UPDATED COVER OR PHOTO.
16 DO YOU SEE THAT?
17 A. IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT, YEAH.
18 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
19 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
20 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 6 FOR

021318.txt
21 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: YEAH. DID YOU UPDATE THE COVER
23 PHOTO FOR REDONDO UNITED'S FACEBOOK PAGE ON JANUARY 24, 24 2017?
25 A. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T RECALL. LIKE I
93 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 SAID, I DON'T RECALL THIS BEING ANYTHING ACTIVE.
2 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "ANYTHING ACTIVE,"
3 WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
4 A. I DON'T -- I WASN'T GOING ANYWHERE WITH IT AT
5 THAT POINT.
6 Q. WELL, WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE WHO -- WHO WAS
7 POSTING ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE, OR THE FACEBOOK PAGE? 8 A. WELL, IF I DON'T RECALL THIS BEING PUT UP,
9 THEN I WOULD PRESUME THAT SOMEBODY ELSE POSTED IT UP. 10 Q. WELL, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAD THE
11 AUTHORITY OR THE ABILITY TO POST ANYTHING ON THIS
12 FACEBOOK PAGE?
13 A. I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW SO MANY PAGES.
14 Q. YOU HAD SO MANY PAGES?

021318.txt
15 A. NO. "I KNOW SO MANY PAGES." I'M IN THE
16 TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, SO --
17 Q. OKAY. WELL, YOU SAID YOU HAD 40 DOMAINS. HOW
18 MANY FACEBOOK PAGES WERE YOU -- WERE YOU AN
19 ADMINISTRATOR FOR IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 2017? 20 A. I DON'T TRACK THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE I RUN A
21 LOT OF COMPANIES AND DO THEIR -- AND HELP OUT WITH THEIR 22 SUPPORT.
23 Q. OKAY. WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE FACEBOOK
24 PAGES THAT RELATED OR MADE COMMENTS ON THE WATERFRONT -- 25 THE WATERFRONT PROJECT AT CENTERCAL OR EVEN MEASURE C. 94 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 HOW MANY FACEBOOK PAGES WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOU WERE 2 THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR BACK THEN?
3 A. WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN TWO AND
4 PROBABLY --
5 Q. OKAY.
6 A. I DON'T EVEN -- IT MIGHT ONLY BE TWO.
7 Q. OKAY.
8 A. I'LL GO WITH MORE THAN TWO AND LESS THAN
9 TEN --

021318.txt
10 Q. OKAY.
11 A. -- BUT I THINK IT MIGHT ONLY BE TWO.
12 Q. ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL ME THE NAMES OF THEM?
13 A. REDONDO UNITED AT ONE POINT, BECAUSE I
14 REMEMBER HELPING SET UP LAYOUTS. AND WHAT'S THE OTHER 15 ONE CALLED? OH, THERE'S THREE THAT I CAN THINK OF. SO 16 THERE'S VOICES OF THE WATERFRONT VITALITY AND THE
17 HARBOR FRONT BOARDWALK AND SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. 18 Q. OKAY.
19 MS. ZIMMER: I'M SORRY. YOU KIND OF DRIFTED
20 OFF. WHAT WAS THAT? HARBOR FRONT AND --
21 THE WITNESS: HARBOR FRONT AND BOARDWALK, I
22 BELIEVE, OR BOARDWALK AND HARBOR.
23 Q. BY MR. COLIN: THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK &
24 MARKETPLACE?
25 A. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT. THERE'S A COUPLE
95 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THAT HAVE VERY SIMILAR NAMES, SO THAT'S WHY IF I SAW THE 2 PAGE ITSELF, I WOULD BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WOULD 3 BE THE PAGE.

021318.txt
4 Q. BY MR. COLIN: I'M GOING TO MARK THE NEXT
5 PAGE EXHIBIT 7, AND THIS IS A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT. IT
6 LOOKS TO BE A FACEBOOK PAGE SCREENSHOT FOR REDONDO BEACH 7 VOICES FOR WATERFRONT VITALITY.
8 A. YEAH. THAT WAS -- WAIT.
9 Q. AND --
10 A. SO THIS IS THE REDONDO --
11 Q. THERE'S NO QUESTION YET.
12 A. MY APOLOGIES.
13 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
14 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER
15 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 7 FOR
16 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
17 Q. BY MR. COLIN: I DON'T WANT YOU TO -- NOW, ON
18 THIS PAGE, THERE'S A DATE AUGUST 28, 2017. WAS THERE 19 ANYBODY, BESIDES YOU, WHO HAD THE ABILITY TO -- TO POST 20 ON THIS PARTICULAR FACEBOOK PAGE?
21 A. WHAT PAGE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
22 Q. WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ONE EXHIBIT,
23 PAGE 7, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY REFERRING TO THE FACEBOOK 24 PAGE, REDONDO BEACH VOICES FOR WATERFRONT VITALITY.
25 WERE YOU THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS PAGE?
96 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt

1 A. OKAY. SO YOU'RE INCORRECT.
2 Q. OKAY. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
3 A. THIS PAGE IS CLEARLY AT THE TOP THE "REDONDO
4 HARBOR BOARDWALK & MARKETPLACE" PAGE.
5 Q. OKAY. I'M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT.
6 A. IT IS THE LOGO FOR THE OTHER GROUP THAT THEY
7 ASKED TO MOVE OVER TO THIS; AND YEAH, THERE WOULD HAVE 8 BEEN PROBABLY AT LEAST TEN PEOPLE.
9 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "THEY ASKED THAT IT BE
10 MOVED OVER," WHO ARE THE "THEY" THAT YOU'RE REFERRING 11 TO?
12 A. A GROUP OF FOLKS. ARNETTE WAS PART OF VOICES
13 WHEN WE WERE REALLY IN EXISTENCE FOR THAT, SO --
14 Q. SO ARNETTE TRAVIS.
15 WHO ELSE?
16 A. LET'S SEE, CHRISTINA JESPERSON --
17 Q. OKAY.
18 A. -- AND TOM GRAY.
19 Q. OKAY. AND THEY WERE -- THEY WERE PART OF
20 REDONDO BEACH VOICES FOR WATERFRONT VITALITY?
21 A. WE WERE AN INFORMAL GROUP MEETING WITH THAT
22 NAME, BUT REALLY DIDN'T CONTINUE IT TOO MUCH. WE DIDN'T

021318.txt
23 WANT TO PUT ANYTHING INTO IT. IT WAS NEVER TO A FORMAL 24 STAGE.
25 Q. WAS IT A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE?
97 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. IT NEVER GOT TO THAT POINT.
2 Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP
3 THAT AS EXHIBIT 7. AND LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE TEXT OF 4 EXHIBIT 7 WHERE IT READS "THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK & 5 MARKETPLACE, AUGUST 28, 2017," AND IT STARTS WITH:
6 "THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND
7 STATEMENTS BY R.O.W.," AND THEN IT
8 CONTINUES ON, "BELOW IS AN E-MAIL
9 SENT OUT BY R.O.W. TODAY AND THE
10 CORRESPONDING TRUTH BEHIND THEIR
11 PROPAGANDA," AND THEN IT LISTS SIX
12 DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS.
13 AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
14 PAGE, IT SAYS:
15 "TRUTH: THIS IS NORMAL
16 PROCEDURE. ANYONE CAN TELL YOU

021318.txt
17 THIS," ET CETERA.
18 DID YOU POST THE CONTENT OF WHAT APPEARED ON
19 REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK & MARKETPLACE ON AUGUST 28, 20 2017.
21 A. NO.
22 Q. THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT --
23 A. NOT THAT I RECALL.
24 Q. OKAY. THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT YOU POSTED?
25 A. I DON'T RECALL DOING -- POSTING LIKE THIS.
98 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO POSTED THIS ON THE
2 HARBOR BOARDWALK & MARKETPLACE PAGE?
3 A. I DO NOT -- I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE PEOPLE THAT
4 WERE -- THAT HAD ACCESS TO IT.
5 Q. WELL --
6 A. I DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE, SO I
7 KNOW -- I KNEW OF THE NAMES, BUT I DON'T KNOW THEM AS 8 PEOPLE.
9 Q. OKAY. WELL, WHO WERE THE NAMES THAT YOU
10 BELIEVE HAD ACCESS TO THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK & 11 MARKETPLACE FACEBOOK PAGE?

021318.txt
12 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE TERM "ACCESS."
13 DO YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF --
14 MR. COLIN: BEING ABLE TO POST.
15 MR. HERTZ: POST, OKAY.
16 THE WITNESS: AT FIRST, IT WAS -- I BELIEVE IT
17 WAS WIDE OPEN TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP.
18 AND, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHO -- I DON'T KNOW WHO THE 19 NAMES WERE. I KNOW THAT THE SITE WAS ORIGINALLY SET UP 20 BY TONY TRUTANICH --
21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY.
22 A. -- AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALL I REALLY -- I WAS
23 NOT CLOSELY MONITORING IT. I WAS MORE JUST HELPING THE 24 NONCONTENT SIDE OF IT.
25 Q. OKAY. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT TONY TRUTANICH
99 EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 WAS INVOLVED IN POSTING ON THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK 2 & MARKETPLACE FACEBOOK PAGE?
3 A. HE ASKED ME TO -- TO HELP HIM GET IT SET UP
4 BECAUSE HE HAD TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT WERE ABLE TO GO AND 5 POST, AS HE JUST BASICALLY INVITED PEOPLE AS ADMINS

021318.txt
6 INSTEAD OF PEOPLE SENDING AN INVITE TO THE PAGE.
7 Q. DID YOU EVER POST ON THAT PAGE, ON THE HARBOR
8 BOARDWALK & MARKETPLACE PAGE?
9 A. I HAVE POSTED -- MY NAME ACTUALLY IS IN THE
10 POST THAT I POST ON THERE.
11 Q. OKAY.
12 A. I HAD IT SET UP SO THAT I WOULD ALWAYS SHOW MY
13 NAME.
14 Q. OKAY. AND WHAT NAME WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?
15 A. CHRIS VOISEY.
16 Q. OKAY. DID YOU USE ANY OTHER NAMES?
17 A. NO. IN CALIFORNIA --
18 Q. DID YOU USE ANY -- I'M SORRY.
19 A. IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO BE GOING UNDER ANY
20 OTHER NAME.
21 Q. OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
22 HAVE YOU USED ANY ALIASES ON ANY OF THE
23 FACEBOOK PAGES THAT YOU'VE TOLD ME ABOUT --
24 A. NO.
25 Q. -- SO FAR?
100

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 A. I DIDN'T -- AGAIN, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
2 TO GO ONLINE AND USE A DIFFERENT NAME WOULD BE AN
3 OFFENSE, AND I ACTUALLY ADVISE MY CLIENTS OF THAT.
4 Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW A MARIA TYLER?
5 A. NO.
6 Q. IS THAT AN AKA THAT YOU USE ON
7 NEXTDOOR/ALTA VISTA?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. DO YOU KNOW A MARCUS ACRES?
10 A. I KNOW MARK ACRES.
11 Q. NO. MARK ACRES? WHO --
12 A. IN MANHATTAN BEACH.
13 Q. I'M TALKING ABOUT A MARCUS ACRES ON NEXTDOOR
14 IN THE ALTA VISTA AREA.
15 A. NO.
16 Q. YOU'VE NEVER USED EITHER OF THOSE NAMES TO
17 POST ON NEXTDOOR?
18 A. NO.
19 Q. ARE YOU A LEAD FOR NEXTDOOR?
20 A. YES.
21 Q. OKAY. AND FOR WHAT AREA?
22 A. FOR ALTA VISTA.
23 Q. OKAY. YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING EARLIER. LET
24 ME GO BACK.

021318.txt
25 YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD ENGAGED IN COMMUNICATION
101

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 WITH LINDA MOFFAT AND YOU SAID THAT SHE WAS PROMOTING 2 BILL AND R.O.W. ON NEXTDOOR.COM. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT 3 TESTIMONY?
4 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION TO THE TERM "ENGAGED IN
5 COMMUNICATION." I THOUGHT HE SAID HE --
6 MR. COLIN: "SAW."
7 MR. HERTZ: -- "SAW" AS OPPOSED TO A TWO-WAY
8 COMMUNICATION.
9 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. SO YOU SAW THAT
10 LINDA MOFFAT WAS PROMOTING FOR BILL AND R.O.W. ON
11 NEXTDOOR.COM. I'M NOT SURE HOW NEXTDOOR WORKS, BUT
12 YOU'RE A LEAD FOR THAT. HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW IS A 13 PERSON ABLE TO POST ON NEXTDOOR?
14 A. YOU ARE -- YOU JUST GO ONLINE AND POST. YOU
15 SIGN IN. I'VE USED MY FACEBOOK I.D. TO SIGN IN --
16 Q. OKAY.
17 A. -- AND I -- AND THEN YOU JUST POST ON THERE.
18 IT SHOWS UP AS OUR NAME.

021318.txt
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. AND THEN IF THERE'S CONTENT THAT'S FLAGGED BY
21 NEIGHBORS, WE CAN GO IN AND VOTE ON IT TO BE REMOVED. 22 ENOUGH PEOPLE VOTE ON IT, IT WILL GET REMOVED. I HAVE 23 ACCESS TO THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD.
24 Q. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DELETE
25 SOMEBODY'S POST IF YOU -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD THE
102

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 CONSENSUS OF OTHER PEOPLE; IS THAT HOW IT WORKS?
2 A. WITH OTHER PEOPLE, YEAH.
3 Q. WITH OTHER PEOPLE. OKAY.
4 AND DID YOU SEE THE LINDA MOFFAT PROMOTIONS ON
5 NEXTDOOR/ALTA VISTA?
6 A. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE I WOULD HAVE SEEN HER
7 STUFF.
8 Q. OKAY.
9 A. I KNOW I'VE SEEN HER NAME IN REFERENCE TO IT.
10 Q. ON NEXTDOOR?
11 A. ON NEXTDOOR, YEAH.
12 Q. DO YOU HAVE TO BE VERIFIED AS LIVING WITHIN A
13 CERTAIN REGION WHERE THAT NEXTDOOR SITE COVERS OR IS

021318.txt
14 APPLICABLE?
15 A. YEAH. THEY SEND YOU -- SO WHEN I JOINED, I
16 REMEMBER I SENT -- I WAS SENT A MAILER --
17 Q. OKAY.
18 A. -- TO VERIFY MY PERSON.
19 Q. OKAY. AND SO TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU
20 SAW HER PROMOTING BILL AND R.O.W. ON NEXTDOOR, WOULD IT 21 HAVE BEEN THE ALTA VISTA WHERE YOU'RE THE LEAD?
22 A. IT GOES ACROSS MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS; SO WHEN
23 YOU POST, THERE IS SOME ALGORITHM SET UP WITH NEXTDOOR 24 THAT YOU POST AND IT GETS EXPOSED TO ALL THE
25 NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT.
103

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY.
2 A. AND AS AN ALTA VISTA LEAD, IF I VOTE LIKE THE
3 OTHER -- I THINK THERE'S SIX OR SEVEN ADMINS, BECAUSE 4 SOMEBODY JUST POSTED UP A SHORT TIME AGO, YOU CAN REMOVE 5 THOSE POSTS FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD; BUT IF YOU POSTED
6 FROM ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD STAY UP UNLESS A
7 LEAD FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY REMOVES IT.

021318.txt
8 Q. OKAY. AND DID THE ALTA VISTA NEXTDOOR SITE
9 INCLUDE CITY OF TORRANCE?
10 A. YES.
11 Q. DID IT INCLUDE THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH?
12 A. I BELIEVE I'VE SEEN SOME, BUT I -- I KNOW
13 TORRANCE FOR SURE --
14 Q. OKAY.
15 A. -- BECAUSE WE HAVE WEST TORRANCE AND WE HAVE
16 THE SEASIDE AND THE RIVIERA.
17 Q. WOULD THE ALTA VISTA NEXTDOOR HAVE INCLUDED
18 RANCHO PALOS VERDES?
19 A. DEPENDS ON WHERE IT WAS SET UP. ORIGINALLY,
20 IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THEY'VE CHANGED IT.
21 Q. OKAY. BUT WHEN YOU --
22 A. AND I'VE NARROWED DOWN MINE, TOO, SO I ONLY
23 GET REDONDO NOW; BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN I WOULD HAVE 24 CHANGED THAT.
25 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN A PERSON POSTS ON NEXTDOOR,
104

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DOES IT SHOW WHERE THAT PERSON LIVES?
2 A. NOT NECESSARILY. YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.

021318.txt
3 IT SHOWS WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
4 Q. WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. OKAY. AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD YOU
7 SAW ALONGSIDE LINDA MOFFAT'S NAME OR --
8 A. NO.
9 Q. -- SCREEN?
10 OKAY.
11 A. AND, AGAIN, I'M RECALLING LINDA MOFFAT POSTING
12 THERE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHERE ELSE. I'VE SEEN
13 THAT, BUT THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE OF WHERE I SAW A LOT 14 OF THE STUFF; BECAUSE, NORMALLY, THERE'S -- WHEN YOU'RE 15 POSTING ABOUT AN EVENT, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PLACE WHERE 16 PEOPLE WERE POSTING IT.
17 Q. OKAY. YOU ALSO EARLIER TESTIFIED THAT SOME OF
18 THESE DEFENDANTS WERE TAKING ADVANTAGE -- LET ME USE 19 YOUR LANGUAGE -- TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION.
20 WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
21 A. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CONTEXT?
22 Q. YEAH. I ASKED YOU EARLIER, AND YOU MENTIONED
23 TO ME THAT YOU HAD SEEN PHOTOS OF EVENTS, PHOTOS THAT 24 HAD BEEN SHARED ON FACEBOOK. YOU SAW WHERE SOME OF THE 25 DEFENDANTS WERE WORKING TOGETHER. THEY WERE MAKING
105

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 SPEECHES. YOU SAW VIDEOS OF THEM TALKING, AND YOU
2 SAID -- AND THEM, IN GENERAL, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE 3 SITUATION. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT, 4 "TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION."
5 A. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF JUST THE SITUATION OF THE
6 KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S BEING SPREAD AND WRITING WHAT I
7 WOULD RESEARCH AND PERSONALLY FOUND OUT WAS FALSE
8 INFORMATION AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF, YOU KNOW, THE LACK 9 OF UNDERSTANDING FROM FOLKS THAT WOULDN'T -- WOULDN'T 10 KNOW OTHERWISE.
11 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "SPREADING FALSE
12 INFORMATION," LET ME START WITH NILS NEHRENHEIM. WHAT 13 FALSE INFORMATION DID MR. NEHRENHEIM SPREAD THAT YOU 14 OBSERVED?
15 A. MISREPRESENTING WHAT WAS GOING ON AND THE
16 NEEDS OF THE WATERFRONT. IT IS DELIPIDATED. IT IS
17 FALLING APART. IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH CHANGE. THE
18 PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS NOT GIVING AWAY OUR WATERFRONT. 19 IT IS LEASING THE LAND. THERE HAS BEEN MANY CASES OF 20 TIMES WHERE -- YOU KNOW, COMPARING IT TO A MALL, WHICH

021318.txt
21 IS A COMPLETE MISREPRESENTATION OF IT.
22 Q. SO IS THAT THE -- IS THAT THE SPREAD OF FALSE
23 INFORMATION? TELL ME WHAT IT IS THAT HE SAID THAT YOU 24 OBSERVED THAT HE SAID THAT WAS FALSE.
25 A. "WE DON'T NEED A MALL IN OUR WATERFRONT."
106

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. OKAY. SO THE MALL. OKAY.
2 ANYTHING ELSE?
3 A. THE -- SPREADING THE INFORMATION, THE TYPE OF
4 PEOPLE THAT WOULD VISIT AND NOT BE WELCOMED IN OUR
5 NEIGHBORHOOD.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE'S IMPLYING THAT PEOPLE THAT --
8 Q. I'M ASKING WHAT DID HE SAY?
9 A. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFIC SPEECHES.
10 Q. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU REMEMBER THAT
11 HE --
12 A. NO.
13 Q. -- THAT WAS FALSE THAT HE STATED?
14 A. DON'T RECALL.
15 Q. OKAY. LET'S TALK ABOUT WAYNE CRAIG. WHAT IS

021318.txt
16 IT THAT MR. CRAIG DID THAT SPREAD -- THAT LED YOU TO 17 CONCLUDE HE WAS SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION?
18 A. FOR ONE, IT'S JUST TO FOLLOW THE INFORMATION
19 THAT CONTINUES ON. AGAIN, "IT'S A MALL." I HAVE HEARD 20 THE STATEMENT FROM MR. CRAIG THAT I WAS A -- THAT I SAID 21 I WAS BEING PAID FOR OR REPRESENTING CENTERCAL, WHEN 22 THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF
23 BEING IN PLACES AND CAUSING RUCKUSES WHERE THAT HAS NOT 24 HAPPENED, AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ATTACKS
25 CONSTANTLY ON ME AND MY INFORMATION THAT I'M GATHERING 107

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 AND DOING MY OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH ON TO UNDERSTAND HOW 2 IT -- HOW EVERYTHING WORKS TO PLAY TOGETHER.
3 Q. OKAY. WELL, TELL ME WHAT THOSE ATTACKS
4 CONSISTED OF. WHAT DID HE SAY THAT YOU INTERPRET --
5 A. WELL, I JUST STATED ONE.
6 Q. -- AS AN ATTACK.
7 A. TRYING TO SAY THAT MY -- TRYING TO DEMEAN MY
8 WORDS THAT I'M BEING PAID TO SAY THEM OR IN ANY WAY
9 COMPENSATED.

021318.txt
10 Q. SO HE SAID YOU WERE BEING PAID. HE USED THE
11 TERM "MALL."
12 ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS FALSE?
13 A. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I CAN'T RECALL
14 ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
15 Q. OKAY. LET'S GO TO BILL BRAND. WHAT IS IT
16 THAT YOU OBSERVED OR SAW THAT MR. BRAND DID THAT
17 CONSTITUTED FALSE INFORMATION, THE SPREADING OF FALSE 18 INFORMATION?
19 A. MISREPRESENTING THE -- WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED
20 ON THE WATERFRONT.
21 Q. OKAY. TELL ME WHAT HE -- WHAT EXACTLY HE
22 SAID.
23 A. "IT'S A MALL" AGAIN.
24 Q. OKAY. HE SAID, "IT'S A MALL."
25 A. THAT "THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE HORRENDOUS." THAT,
108

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 SPECIFICALLY, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, "NOBODY WANTS
2 THIS" --
3 Q. OKAY.
4 A. -- WHICH IS FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE --

021318.txt
5 Q. OKAY.
6 A. -- AND, YOU KNOW, CONSTANTLY SENDING THAT
7 INFORMATION TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ON -- AND TELLING THEM 8 WHICH WAY TO VOTE BASED ON THIS INFORMATION.
9 Q. WELL, DID HE SEND IT TO YOU? OR ARE YOU AWARE
10 THAT --
11 A. IT'S A MASS MAILER.
12 Q. A MASS MAILER?
13 A. A MASS MAILER THAT HE REGULARLY DOES.
14 Q. A MASS E-MAIL OR A MASS MAILER IN TERMS OF --
15 A. E-MAIL.
16 Q. AN E-MAIL, OKAY.
17 DID YOU SEE ANY COPIES OF THOSE E-MAILS IN THE
18 TWO BINDERS THAT YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER TODAY?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. OKAY. SO WE'LL GO BACK AND CHECK. OKAY.
21 ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU OBSERVED MR. BRAND DO
22 THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION?
23 A. I THINK THAT -- AT A HIGH LEVEL, THAT'S PRETTY
24 MUCH IT THAT I CAN SPECIFICALLY PUT MY FINGER ON RIGHT 25 NOW.
109

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 Q. AND WITH RESPECT TO LINDA MOFFAT, WHAT IS IT
2 THAT YOU OBSERVED HER DO OR SAY THAT, IN YOUR MIND,
3 CONSTITUTED THE SPREADING OF FALSE -- FALSE INFORMATION? 4 A. SHE WAS JUST SUPPORTING AND GETTING PEOPLE,
5 HELPING TO RALLY TO ATTEND EVENTS.
6 Q. OKAY. SUPPORTING AND HELPING TO RALLY TO
7 ATTEND. OKAY.
8 WHAT IS IT THAT YOU OBSERVED HER DO EXACTLY
9 THAT -- THAT CONSTITUTED THIS SUPPORTING AND HELPING TO 10 RALLY?
11 A. ANNOUNCING -- FROM WHAT I'M RECALLING OF
12 LINDA MOFFAT, ANNOUNCING FUNDRAISING EVENTS AND, YOU 13 KNOW, EVENTS REGARDING THE R.O.W. GROUP.
14 Q. OKAY. FOR R.O.W. -- NOW, ARE YOU TALKING
15 ABOUT R.O.W. OR R.O.W. P.A.C.? LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT
16 THAT.
17 A. I COULDN'T TELL YOU THE SPECIFIC TIMES; AND,
18 AGAIN, DUE TO THE VAGUENESS AND WHAT THEY WERE
19 PUBLISHING ON AT THE TIME OF THOSE, I WASN'T PAYING
20 ATTENTION TO WHETHER THEY WERE A P.A.C. OR A COMMITTEE. 21 Q. AND DID YOU OBSERVE HER SUPPORTING AND HELPING
22 BILL BRAND FOR MAYOR OR WAS SHE DOING THAT FOR SOME OF

021318.txt
23 THE OTHER DEFENDANTS?
24 A. I DID NOT PERSONALLY WITNESS ANY OF THAT, NO.
25 Q. OKAY. BUT YOU SOMEHOW CONCLUDED THAT SHE WAS
110

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DOING THAT. FROM WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO GLEAN -- WHAT
2 DOCUMENTS, WHAT FACEBOOK PAGES WERE YOU ABLE TO GLEAN 3 THAT SHE WAS SUPPORTING AND HELPING TO RALLY ON BEHALF 4 OF ANY OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS?
5 A. I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY --
6 Q. OKAY.
7 A. -- AT THIS POINT. MOST OF THIS STUFF, WHEN
8 THINGS GET RAISED, THEY GET FORWARDED TO ME BY ONE
9 PERSON OR ANOTHER.
10 Q. OKAY.
11 A. I TRY NOT TO READ MUCH OF THESE BECAUSE YOU
12 GET SUCKED IN.
13 Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK TO -- WELL, LET'S GO
14 BACK TO EXHIBITS. LET ME MARK THIS AS EXHIBIT 8. I'LL 15 HAND IT TO YOUR ATTORNEY.
16 (THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
17 WAS MARKED BY THE COURT REPORTER

021318.txt
18 AS DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 8 FOR
19 IDENTIFICATION; ATTACHED HERETO.)
20 Q. BY MR. COLIN: ALL RIGHT. THIS ONE PAGE ITEM,
21 IT'S HEADLINES "THE REDONDO HARBOR BOARDWALK &
22 MARKETPLACE," DATED FEBRUARY 2, AND IT SAYS AT THE TOP 23 "WAY TO GO RESIDENTS!"
24 DO YOU SEE THAT PAGE?
25 A. YES.
111

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 Q. DID YOU POST THIS ON -- ON THAT FACEBOOK PAGE?
2 A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
3 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO DID?
4 A. NO.
5 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE IF TONY TRUTANICH POSTED THIS?
6 A. IT'S POSSIBLE.
7 Q. OKAY.
8 MR. HERTZ: AGAIN, DON'T GUESS.
9 THE WITNESS: THEN NO, I DON'T KNOW.
10 Q. BY MR. COLIN: HAD YOU SEEN THIS POST ANY TIME
11 BEFORE THIS MORNING?

021318.txt
12 A. OH, I SAW IT ONLINE.
13 Q. OKAY.
14 A. ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE I KNOW MY NAME IS ON THAT
15 LIST.
16 Q. WHAT LIST?
17 A. MY NAME IS IN HERE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ON
18 THIS ONE.
19 Q. ON THE PHOTOGRAPH INSERT?
20 A. YEAH, RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).
21 Q. OH, YEAH. THERE YOU ARE. I SEE
22 "CHRIS VOISEY" ON THE SECOND ROW, THE FIRST -- THE FIRST 23 NAME; AND LOOKS LIKE ON THE ONE, TWO, THREE -- ON THE 24 FOURTH ROW DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THERE'S "ARNETTE TRAVIS." 25 DO YOU SEE HER NAME, ALSO?
112

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 MR. HERTZ: I THINK THAT'S THE FOURTH COLUMN,
2 ACTUALLY.
3 Q. BY MR. COLIN: "FOURTH COLUMN." I'M SORRY.
4 A. YEAH. I SEE "JESSICA."
5 Q. HER NAME IS TWO ABOVE.
6 A. OH, THERE SHE IS, YEAH.

021318.txt
7 Q. DID YOU TALK TO ARNETTE ABOUT HAVING YOUR NAME
8 USED ON THIS PARTICULAR NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT?
9 A. TALK TO ARNETTE FOR GIVING HER PERMISSION TO
10 PUT --
11 Q. NO. DID YOU TALK TO HER ABOUT HAVING HER
12 PLACE HER NAME ON THERE?
13 A. I PROBABLY TALKED TO HER. OUR NAMES WERE ON
14 THERE, YEAH.
15 Q. WELL, DID YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR YOUR NAME TO
16 BE --
17 A. YEAH.
18 Q. -- ON THE AD?
19 MR. HERTZ: MAKE SURE HE FINISHES HIS
20 QUESTION.
21 THE WITNESS: SORRY.
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO
23 THE COMPLAINT. AND WOULD -- LOOK AT PAGE 3,
24 PARAGRAPH 10, THE BOTTOM. IT READS:
25 "DEFENDANT NILS NEHRENHEIM IS
113

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

021318.txt
1 AN INDIVIDUAL --"
2 A. OKAY, SIR.
3 Q. "-- IS AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDING IN
4 THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, AND AT
5 ALL TIMES --" "ALL RELEVANT TIMES
6 WAS A CANDIDATE FOR THE
7 REDONDO BEACH CITY COUNCIL," COMMA,
8 "WAS THE CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF
9 NEHRENHEIM FOR COUNCIL 2017, WAS A
10 CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF R.O.W.
11 P.A.C., AND HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION
12 TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
13 PROVISIONS OF POLITICAL REFORM ACT
14 AND RELATED REGULATIONS."
15 IN THIS PARAGRAPH, WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU
16 PERSONALLY HAVE THAT LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT
17 NILS NEHRENHEIM WAS A CONTROLLING CANDIDATE OF
18 R.O.W. P.A.C.?
19 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A LEGAL
20 CONCLUSION AS TO THE TERM "CONTROLLING CANDIDATE"; BUT 21 THE WITNESS CAN ANSWER.
22 Q. BY MR. COLIN: DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION?
23 A. NO.
24 Q. YOU CAN ANSWER.

021318.txt
25 MR. HERTZ: YOU CAN ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY --
114

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THE WITNESS: I HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
2 MR. HERTZ: -- THOUGHTS OR INFORMATION ABOUT
3 IT.
4 THE WITNESS: NO. WELL, CONTROLLING
5 INFORMATION, I -- I HAVE CONSTANTLY SEEN HIM TALK ABOUT 6 BOTH HIS CAMPAIGN, WHICH IS A NO-BRAINER, AS WELL AS HE 7 HAS BEEN OUT PROMOTING ON A CONSTANT BASIS R.O.W.,
8 INCLUDING SPEAKING AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION, WHICH I 9 PERSONALLY WITNESSED HIM LIVE IN PERSON DO, AND CONSTANT 10 DEMONSTRATIONS ON PCH AND OTHER PLACES WHICH I KNOW HE 11 SUBMITTED SOME PHOTOS OF THAT WERE TAKEN AND
12 SPECIFICALLY SHOW HIM DOING BOTH.
13 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. YOU SAID THAT HE TALKED.
14 WHAT DID HE TALK ABOUT?
15 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; VAGUE.
16 AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION?
17 MR. COLIN: NO, NO.
18 Q. YOU SAID NILS CONTROLLED -- I ASKED YOU HOW
19 WAS IT THAT HE CONTROLLED IT, AND YOU SAID HE TALKED AND

021318.txt
20 HE PROMOTED R.O.W. ARE YOU REFERRING TO RESCUE OUR
21 WATERFRONT OR THE R.O.W. P.A.C.?
22 A. ONCE AGAIN, UNCLEAR OF WHEN THEY WERE CHANGING
23 BETWEEN THE R.O.W. P.A.C. AND THE R.O.W. COMMITTEE.
24 Q. OKAY.
25 A. HE WAS CONSTANTLY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF BOTH
115

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 R.O.W. AND HIMSELF, AS HE USED TO PUT IT, CANDIDATE FOR 2 CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 1.
3 Q. OH, OKAY.
4 A. AND WHEN HE SPOKE IN GENERAL SESSION AND ON
5 SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AT CITY COUNCIL --
6 Q. OKAY.
7 A. -- AND WHEN HE INTRODUCED HIMSELF AT THE
8 COASTAL COMMISSION, HE FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING UP ABOUT 9 HIS CANDIDACY OF RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE AND FOCUSED
10 HIMSELF AS PART OF R.O.W.
11 Q. SO DID YOU -- DID YOU INTERPRET HIS LACK OF
12 MENTIONING TO THE CALIFORNIA -- TO THE CALIFORNIA
13 COASTAL COMMISSION THAT HE WAS NOT A CANDIDATE FOR CITY

021318.txt
14 ATTORNEY AS SOMETHING ILLEGAL?
15 A. I THOUGHT IT WAS MISLEADING.
16 Q. OKAY. MISLEADING TO YOU OR MISLEADING TO
17 SOMEBODY ELSE?
18 A. ANYBODY.
19 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
20 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. DID ANYBODY EVER TELL
21 YOU THAT THEY HAD BEEN MISLED BY NILS NEHRENHEIM WHEN HE 22 MADE AN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
23 COMMISSION AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. WHO TOLD YOU THEY WERE BEING MISLED?
116

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMEBODY -- WHY AM I DRAWING
2 A BLANK ON HIS NAME? THEY WERE MISLED IN THE FACT THAT 3 HE WAS NOT -- HE WAS NOT RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE, BUT HE 4 WAS PART OF R.O.W. I BELIEVE IT WAS PAT HEALY, BUT I
5 COULD BE MISTAKEN.
6 Q. OKAY. SO YOU BELIEVE THAT PAT HEALY -- WAS
7 PAT HEALY PRESENT AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING?
8 A. NO. HE WATCHED IT ONLINE AND WAS ASKING

021318.txt
9 QUESTIONS LATER.
10 Q. OKAY. HE WATCHED IT ONLINE?
11 A. YEAH.
12 Q. AND WAS THIS THE COASTAL COMMISSION MEETING
13 THAT TOOK PLACE IN MAY OF 2017?
14 A. FEBRUARY 2017.
15 Q. OKAY. WHICH LOCATION WAS THE MEETING HELD AT?
16 A. NEWPORT.
17 Q. WERE THERE ANY OTHER COASTAL COMMISSION
18 HEARINGS WHERE YOU SAW MR. NEHRENHEIM ADDRESS THEM,
19 WHERE YOU THOUGHT HE WAS MISLEADING THEM?
20 A. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN HIM MENTION HIS
21 CANDIDACY VERSUS TALK, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER OTHER
22 SPEECHES BY HIM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
23 Q. OKAY. AND YOU SAID HE WAS PROMOTING R.O.W.
24 WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PROMOTING R.O.W.? WHAT WAS HE
25 DOING?
117

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 A. HE WAS -- BEGAN HIS SPEECH BY, YOU KNOW,
2 MENTIONING HE WAS PART OF AND FOUNDER OF AN ORGANIZATION

021318.txt
3 CALLED RESCUE OUR WATERFRONT.
4 Q. OKAY. AND THE SPEECH THAT YOU HEARD, WHERE
5 WAS THAT?
6 A. OUTSIDE OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION, IT WAS --
7 IT WAS CITY COUNCIL.
8 Q. OKAY. SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND CITY
9 COUNCIL. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WAS MISLEADING ANY -- 10 WELL, WERE YOU BEING MISLED WHEN MR. NEHRENHEIM
11 APPROACHED THE CITY COUNCIL AND SPOKE TO IT?
12 A. WAS I MISLED?
13 Q. YES.
14 A. NO; BUT I FELT LIKE MY FELLOW CITIZENS.
15 Q. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE ASKING YOU NOT TO
16 SPECULATE. ALL RIGHT?
17 SO YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE BEING MISLED WHEN HE
18 ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL?
19 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; MISSTATES THE
20 TESTIMONY.
21 Q. BY MR. COLIN: OKAY. WELL, WHEN YOU SAW
22 MR. NEHRENHEIM APPROACH THE CITY COUNCIL AND SPEAK AT 23 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, WERE YOU PRESENT IN THE ROOM? 24 A. SOME, YES.
25 Q. OKAY. AND WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE COUNCIL, WHAT
118

021318.txt

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 DID HE SAY THAT -- THAT YOU INTERPRETED AS BEING
2 MISLEADING TO YOU?
3 MR. HERTZ: OBJECTION; MISSTATES THE
4 TESTIMONY.
5 Q. BY MR. COLIN: SO DID HE MISLEAD YOU IN ANY
6 WAY?
7 A. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS, HE WOULD BE
8 MISLEADING ME AND I WOULD FORM A DIFFERENT OPINION, YES. 9 Q. BUT HE DIDN'T MISLEAD YOU, DID HE? BECAUSE
10 YOU KNEW THE FACTS, RIGHT?
11 A. CORRECT.
12 Q. OKAY. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, BESIDES
13 HEARING HIM TALK AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE
14 COUNCIL AND PROMOTING R.O.W., THAT YOU -- HAVE YOU TOLD 15 ME EVERYTHING WHERE YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. NEHRENHEIM WAS 16 PROMOTING R.O.W.? CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE?
17 A. HE WAS PROMOTING R.O.W. AT THE BOOTH THAT WERE
18 AT VARIOUS COMMUNITY EVENTS IN THE VILLAGE --
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. -- THE RIVIERA VILLAGE AND PROMOTING HIS PART
21 OF WHAT HE WAS DOING WITH R.O.W., AND THAT'S ALL -- TOP

021318.txt
22 OF MY HEAD, THAT'S ALL I CAN THINK OF AT THIS POINT IN 23 TIME.
24 Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAW HIM PROMOTING AT THIS
25 BOOTH IN THE RIVIERA VILLAGE, WAS HE PROMOTING HIS OWN 119

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 CANDIDACY FOR CITY COUNCIL?
2 A. NO.
3 Q. WAS ANYBODY THERE WITH HIM PROMOTING ANY OTHER
4 CANDIDATES?
5 A. AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME THAT I'M THINKING OF
6 RIGHT NOW, NO.
7 Q. OKAY. TELL ME THE TIME THAT YOU'RE THINKING
8 OF WHEN YOU SAW HIM AT THE BOOTH.
9 A. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- I BELIEVE IT
10 WOULD HAVE BEEN ST. PATRICK'S DAY.
11 Q. MARCH OF WHAT YEAR?
12 A. OF 2017.
13 Q. OKAY. AFTER HE HAD PREVAILED IN THE PRIMARY
14 AGAINST MARTHA BARBEE?
15 A. WAS THAT AFTER?

021318.txt
16 Q. WELL, ISN'T, WELL, ST. PATRICK'S DAY
17 APPROXIMATELY MARCH 17, 2017?
18 MS. ZIMMER: NOT APPROXIMATELY. IT IS.
19 MR. COLIN: YEAH.
20 THE WITNESS: WELL, IT -- THEY -- THE DATE
21 THAT THE RUN WAS IS NOT -- I DON'T BELIEVE WAS ON
22 ST. PATRICK'S DAY.
23 Q. BY MR. COLIN: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SATURDAY,
24 RIGHT?
25 A. YEAH. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS BEFORE OR
120

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 AFTER. I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE OF THE ELECTION.
2 Q. MARCH 7, 2017.
3 A. SORRY.
4 Q. YOU BELIEVE THAT AFTER -- AFTER THE ELECTION,
5 THE MARCH 7 ELECTION, YOU SAW HIM PROMOTING AT A BOOTH 6 IN RIVIERA VILLAGE AT THE ST. PATRICK'S RUN?
7 A. CORRECT.
8 Q. WHAT WAS HE SAYING?
9 A. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF WHAT THE
10 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT WOULD DO ON THE -- I REMEMBER THE

021318.txt
11 SEA LIONS AND THE OCEAN LIFE THERE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY 12 PART I CAUGHT.
13 Q. OKAY. DID HE SAY THESE THINGS TO YOU?
14 A. NO.
15 Q. HOW FAR WERE YOU FROM MR. NEHRENHEIM WHEN YOU
16 HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT THE SEA LIONS IN THE HARBOR AND 17 THOSE KIND OF THINGS?
18 A. PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX FEET --
19 Q. OKAY.
20 A. -- IF I'M THINKING OF THE RIGHT EVENT, AND I
21 WILL DISCLAIM THAT I JUST -- I KNOW THAT IT WAS ONE OF 22 THE COMMON EVENTS THAT IS DOWN THERE, AND THE TIMING 23 WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT FOR ABOUT THAT.
24 Q. OKAY. SO ST. PATRICK'S DAY, APPROXIMATELY
25 2017, RIVIERA VILLAGE. ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. VOISEY, THAT 121

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS

1 THE MEASURE C WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS ON MARCH 7TH,
2 2017, TEN DAYS BEFORE YOU SAW HIM PROMOTING R.O.W.?
3 A. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT STILL IT WAS
4 ONGOING FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN.

021318.txt
5 Q. THE CAMPAIGN WAS STILL ONGOING FOR MEASURE C?
6 A. NOT NECESSARILY MEASURE C, BUT R.O.W. AND
7 OPPOSING THE WATERFRONT.
8 Q. OKAY.
9 MR. HERTZ: I JUST WANTED TO MENTION FOR THE
10 RECORD MR. VOISEY IS EXPECTING A CALL THIS AFTERNOON, SO 11 THAT'S -- AND WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK AT THAT
12 POINT, SO I THINK THAT'S WHY HE'S BEEN CHECKING HIS
13 WATCH.
14 THE WITNESS: YEAH.
15 Q. BY MR. COLIN: JUST LET US KNOW.
16 A. AND I'M ALSO MONITORING A WIFE WITH A NEWBORN
17 THAT'S NOT EVEN A WEEK OLD YET.
18 Q. OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT
19 YOU HAD A MEETING DOWN HERE AT 6:00 P.M. SO THIS WAS 20 GOING TO BE REALLY CONVENIENT FOR YOU.
21 A. WELL, IT'S PHONE CALLS, THOUGH, AND IF -- THAT
22 OTHER MEETING WOULD BE CANCELED IF I HAD TO GO HOME TO 23 MY WIFE.
24 Q. OH, OKAY. AT PARAGRAPH 17 OF THE COMPLAINT --
25 THIS IS ON PAGE 5, IT READS:
122

EXCEL COURT REPORTERS