Kristin Perry, et al v. Dennis Hollingsworth, et al
Filed (ECF) Appellees Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo in 09-17241 citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/01/2009.  [09-17241, 09-17551] (TJB)
Kristin Perry, et al v. Dennis Hollingsworth, et al
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
__________ 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071-3197 (213) 229-7000 www.gibsondunn.com
December 1, 2009
Client Matter No.
(213) 229-6804 DELIVERED VIA ECF FILING Ms. Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit James Browning Courthouse San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Perry et al. v. Hollingsworth et al., Nos. 09-17241, 09-17551
Dear Ms. Dwyer: On behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellees ("Plaintiffs") and pursuant to FRAP 28(j), I write to bring to the Court's attention a document apparently authored by one of the Proponents of Proposition 8, Hak-Shing William "Bill" Tam, that was not produced by Proponents-- presumably pursuant to Proponents' claim of privilege--but nevertheless was discovered by Plaintiffs on the internet. The document, which can be found at http://presencefamily.org/index.php?option =com_content&view=article&id=45:what-if-we-lose&catid=16:current-issues&Itemid=22, is attached. Although this document is not in the record before the district court, "[u]nder Fed. R. Evid. 201, a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). This document is pertinent to the scope of Proponents' claim of privilege, which Proponents' response to this Court's order to show cause suggests is limited to "internal campaign documents and communications." Show Cause Resp. 4.
Ms. Molly C. Dwyer December 1, 2009 Page 2
The document is also pertinent to Proponents' claim that "the internal, confidential political information at issue" is "not relevant to Plaintiffs' constitutional claim," because "nonpublic communications with their political associates would reveal nothing about the voters' intent." Stay Mot. 14. Very truly yours, /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
TJB/tek Attachment as stated cc: All counsel
What if We Lose
Page 1 of 1
The a ter
Home Speakers Newsflash Upcoming Events Newsletters Friends of Presence Email Updates Support Us
Home > Current News > What if We Lose
What if We Lose
Dear friends, This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to "legalize prostitution". This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen...... 1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hand. 2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children's grandchildren? 3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave -- how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won't be picked as the next target. If your church is sued, don't expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless. In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We'd have great power if we pool our resources together. Let's win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction. Thanks for your efforts, Bill Tam Traditional Family Coalition
Last Updated on Friday, 04 September 2009 09:50
Panel Discussion: "Protecting Our Children from the Moral Crisis
Marriage Parenting Age 6-12
$12.00 Add to Cart Pastor's Legal Seminar
Current News Prop. 8 Updates Apologetics Engaging the Culture Testimony Education
$15.00 Add to Cart
$10.00 Add to Cart
Articles Products Past Events
©2009 Presence Ministry
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that on (date) , I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Signature ***********************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that on (date) Dec 1, 2009 , I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Please see attached service list attachment.
Signature /s/Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
SERVICE LIST Case Name: Perry, et al. v. Hollingsworth, et al. Case No: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-17241 (Consolidated with Case No. 09-17551 as of 11/19/09) Andrew P. Pugno THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO 101 Parkshore Dr. Folsom, CA 95630 Nicole Moss Howard C. Neilson, Jr. Peter A. Patterson David H. Thompson COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Alan L. Schlosser Elizabeth O. Gill ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INC. 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Jon W. Davidson LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. Ste. 1300 3325 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729 Matthew A. Coles ACLU LGBT & AIDS Project 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 Stephen V. Bomse ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.