Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 668

Declaration of Nicole J. Moss in Support of #667 Reply Memorandum, filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) #667 ) (Cooper, Charles) (Filed on 5/10/2010)

Exhibit A

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ---oOo---

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/

Deposition of RONALD PRENTICE Volume I Thursday, December 17, 2009

REPORTED BY:

LESLIE CASTRO, CSR #8876

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES Court Reporting Services 41 Sutter Street, Suite 1605 San Francisco, California 94104 [phone]

15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 54
10:16:35 10:16:37 10:16:40 10:16:45 10:16:48 10:16:49 10:16:51 10:16:52 10:16:54 10:16:55 10:16:58 10:17:03 10:17:04 10:17:07 10:17:11 10:17:13 10:17:18 10:17:19 10:17:20 10:17:23 10:17:27 10:17:29 10:17:33 10:17:40 10:17:46 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

Page 56
10:19:38 10:19:54 10:20:06 10:20:08 10:20:15 10:20:37 10:20:38 10:20:42 10:20:45 10:20:48 10:20:52 10:20:57 10:20:59 10:20:59 10:21:00 10:21:07 10:21:08 10:21:16 10:21:19 10:21:21 10:21:26 10:21:26 10:21:39 10:21:42 10:21:48 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

MS. STEWART: Just before you respond, I want to see if we can make a stipulation for the record going forward that I don't have to repeatedly ask the witness if he is going to follow your instruction. MS. MOSS: That is fine. MS. STEWART: I'm going to pretty much assume it unless there's something in the way he answers it that -MS. MOSS: Sure. MS. STEWART: -- that assumes otherwise. Q. So going back to the question with your counsel's instruction, who was on the ad hoc committee that the board of directors of California Renewal gave authority to form a ballot committee? A. There was myself. There was Ned Dolejsi. There was Mark Jansson. And there's the anonymous person. Q. What was the last name? A. I said anonymous. Q. Yourself, Ned Dolejsi, Mr. Jansson? A. Yes. Q. And then an anonymous person? A. A person who chooses to remain confidential. Q. Did you form an entity that is -- did that ad hoc committee then form an entity?

(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1 was Marked for identification.) MS. STEWART: Q A document that at the top says "Protect Marriage." And I'm going to ask you to take a look at it and tell me if you recognize it. (Pause in the proceedings.) THE WITNESS: I would say I can only go so far as to say I'm familiar with its general content. I don't know if it's in any way been altered, but yes. MS. STEWART: Q And on the left, it has, sort of, a gray box that says "ProtectMarriage.com" and has some little people. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Is that the logo of ProtectMarriage.com or a logo? (Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.) THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that it's a formal logo, no. MS. STEWART: Q Has ProtectMarriage.com -A. Thank-you. Q. -- does it have a logo that it has adopted? A. There was a logo that was used during the campaign. So when you refer to ProtectMarriage.com, it does not have a formal logo.

Page 55
10:17:48 10:17:48 10:17:51 10:17:55 10:17:58 10:18:01 10:18:02 10:18:04 10:18:06 10:18:09 10:18:19 10:18:28 10:18:31 10:18:33 10:18:39 10:18:47 10:18:56 10:19:01 10:19:04 10:19:06 10:19:16 10:19:19 10:19:32 10:19:36 10:19:38 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

Page 57
10:21:52 10:22:04 10:22:05 10:22:09 10:22:12 10:22:16 10:22:19 10:22:21 10:22:24 10:22:27 10:22:31 10:22:33 10:22:35 10:22:38 10:22:42 10:22:47 10:22:50 10:22:51 10:22:52 10:22:54 10:23:00 10:23:02 10:23:05 10:23:08 10:23:13 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

A. Yes. Q. And what is that entity? A. The primarily formed ballot measure committee of ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. Q. And what is the form of that entity, if you know? A. When you say "form" -Q. I mean the legal organization. A. Again, I would -- the best I can do is a ballot measure committee. Q. Is -- what is the title of that ballot measure committee? A. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. Q. Is ProtectMarriage.com used in any sense that's broader than that ballot measure committee? A. As you know, there are now -- there is now a (c)(3) and (c)(4), ProtectMarriage.com Education Foundation and ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. Q. Do you sometimes use ProtectMarriage.com to describe a coalition of entities? A. I think that there are a number of entities that would say that they align with the general purposes of ProtectMarriage.com. MS. STEWART: I'm going to have marked as Exhibit 1.

Q. Was there a logo that it used on its website? MS. MOSS: Just by point of clarification, objection. When you're referring to ProtectMarriage.com, are you referring to -- I guess what specifically are you referring to? Is it a shorthand for Yes on 8 or -MS. STEWART: You're getting to my other line of questioning, which I diverted from. So let me go back to that and then we'll go back to the logo. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes it's not a linear process, this deposition business. Q. Do you see the first paragraph of this document where it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a growing broad-based coalition of organizations, churches and individuals who believe that marriage's foremost purpose is raising of healthy children in a family with a mom and a dad"? A. Yes. Q. Is that language that was on ProtectMarriage.com's website at some point in time? A. Apparently, this was printed off of its website, and so I would imagine so. Q. And is it accurate that the title "ProtectMarriage.com" was used to refer to a broad-based coalition of organizations and people?

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 58
10:23:19 10:23:24 10:23:40 10:23:46 10:23:49 10:23:52 10:24:00 10:24:04 10:24:06 10:24:13 10:24:13 10:24:14 10:24:15 10:24:18 10:24:23 10:24:28 10:24:31 10:24:35 10:24:39 10:24:40 10:24:42 10:24:46 10:24:50 10:24:55 10:24:58 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

Page 60
10:27:24 10:27:33 10:27:39 10:27:42 10:27:46 10:27:55 10:27:57 10:27:58 10:28:06 10:28:08 10:28:16 10:28:17 10:28:20 10:28:24 10:28:26 10:28:28 10:28:37 10:28:39 10:28:42 10:28:48 10:28:57 10:29:07 10:29:12 10:29:15 10:29:22 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

A. I would say that ProtectMarriage.com was used -- I would say "yes," and definitely say a broad-based coalition -- loose -- loosely. Q. And when you say "loosely," what do you mean? A. It's a loosely-formed coalition. Q. And who -- what were the organizations that were part of that loosely-based coalition? MS. MOSS: I'm going to object to the extent that -- two grounds: One, I still don't think it's clear exactly which -THE WITNESS: I agree. MS. MOSS: -- entity, ProtectMarriage.com entity that you're referring to. But secondly, to the extent you understand or believe -- understand what entity she's referring to, if it's the Yes on 8 committee, if they were affiliated with organizations and that's publicly known, you can disclose that. If there was any private affiliations that are not publicly known, I instruct you not to answer. THE WITNESS: And I interpret your question to refer to the Yes on 8 campaign. And there were people that would go on to the website and sign on endorsing it. And that's how loose and how broad-based we interpreted the coalition to be. MS. STEWART: Q And so when the website here

a generally directed purpose, not an entity. Q. Was it a coalition? A. Only to the extent that people aligned with a generally directed purpose. Q. Do you recall who was part of that coalition prior to the 2008? A. Prior to the forming of the ballot measure committee, as it reads here, it's a broad-based coalition of organizations, churches and individuals, and so there was no list. There was no -- there was no entity. Q. Was there a website? A. Apparently, this came off of a website and it's copyright '05. Q. And did you have anything to do with that website prior to 2008? A. I did not have anything to do with the creation of the website, no. Q. Do you know who did? A. There has been a -- a changing relatively fluid group of individuals who attempted to keep the public informed of what was going on legally with marriage. Q. But do you know who created the ProtectMarriage.com website that existed before 2008?

Page 59
10:25:07 10:25:09 10:25:18 10:25:21 10:25:24 10:25:31 10:25:36 10:25:41 10:25:43 10:25:47 10:25:51 10:25:53 10:25:56 10:26:03 10:26:10 10:26:20 10:26:26 10:26:38 10:26:45 10:26:51 10:26:54 10:26:58 10:27:04 10:27:12 10:27:17 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

Page 61
10:29:31 10:29:33 10:29:34 10:29:36 10:29:37 10:29:37 10:29:42 10:29:43 10:29:46 10:29:49 10:29:53 10:29:54 10:29:58 10:30:03 10:30:08 10:30:10 10:30:16 10:30:17 10:30:18 10:30:18 10:30:23 10:30:29 10:30:29 10:30:30 10:30:31 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

refers to a broad-based coalition of organizations, churches and individuals, was that coalition formed solely by people signing on to the website? A. Well, actually, as I see at the bottom of this, it says "2005." So this may be -- if it's 2005, it obviously came before the formation of the ballot measure committee. And I don't know even then whether -- well, there's a page on the left it says "Endorsement" so I guess there was opportunity for people to align with this general cause. Q. So let me go back to 2005 then. And ask you: Was -- was there an entity to your knowledge called ProtectMarriage.com in 2005? A. No, not an entity. There have been times over -- there have been -- ProtectMarriage.com has been more a general -- general purpose of -- for the benefit of traditional marriage. And there have been -- and prior to the Yes on 8 campaign, there was not an official entity. Q. Was there something other than an official entity that you understood ProtectMarriage.com to refer to before -- let's say before 2008? A. I think that I understood ProtectMarriage.com prior to the ballot measure committee to be, again, a --

A. I go not know who is responsible for its creation. Q. Was it someone who worked for the California Family Council? A. No. Q. And I believe you said that California Renewal had no employees; correct? A. Correct. Q. So you have no idea, as you sit here, who was responsible for creating the ProtectMarriage.com website before 2008? A. Well, I have some idea in that I've referred to a fluid committee of people. But I do not -- I do not know precisely who pulled this trigger. Q. If you look at the bottom of Exhibit 1, there's a copyright designation it says "Copyright 2005 ProtectMarriage.com." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And then it also says "After all rights reserved," it says "ProtectMarriage.com, a project of California Renewal." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Was there a project of California Renewal in

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 70
10:47:25 10:47:27 10:47:29 10:47:32 10:47:37 10:47:39 10:47:41 10:47:41 10:47:52 10:47:53 10:48:33 10:48:35 10:48:45 10:48:48 10:48:53 10:48:55 10:48:59 10:49:02 10:49:03 10:49:04 10:49:06 10:49:11 10:49:14 10:49:16 10:49:18 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

Page 72
10:50:41 10:50:45 10:50:46 10:50:48 10:50:53 10:50:54 10:51:02 10:51:07 10:51:09 10:51:12 10:51:15 10:51:19 10:51:20 10:51:24 10:51:28 10:51:31 10:51:36 10:51:44 10:51:46 10:51:48 10:51:49 10:51:51 10:51:55 10:52:10 10:52:11 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

MS. STEWART: I'm not. I'm asking for his understanding. THE WITNESS: I think that the measure clarified that there was a legal differentiation between domestic partnerships and marriage. MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at Exhibit 3. (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 3 was marked For identification.) MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this document? A. I'm familiar with it. Q. Is this the ballot measure that was the responsibility of ProtectMarriage.com the 2005 ballot measure committee? A. It appears so. Q. And does this refresh your recollection as to what that ballot measure would have done had it taken effect? A. Yes, it does. Q. And can you tell me what that is? A. Well, the language states that the marriage between a man and a woman would be the only legal union valid or recognized in California. Q. And it would bar domestic partnerships from being recognized as valid legal unions in California; is

THE WITNESS: And I'll restate that I was aware of what the language stated. MS. STEWART: Q Did you have an understanding as to the effect of that language, a lay person's understanding in 2005? A. I had an understanding that this language would be highly contested. Q. Did you have an understanding of what it would mean if it was passed? A. Well, I -- when you ask that question, I -- we had an understanding of what it may mean. Q. And what was that understanding? A. It may mean one of two things: It may mean that it would, as it states here, on its face, bar domestic partnerships from being valid or recognized as legal unions. On the other hand, it may very well mean it would not -- it would not hold up in court. Q. So in other words, it could be challenged is what you're saying? A. Correct. Q. But if it held up, it would mean that there would be no more domestic partnerships -A. As it said on its face, yes. Q. Thank-you. So earlier you were -- we got bogged down a

Page 71
10:49:22 10:49:23 10:49:24 10:49:28 10:49:30 10:49:32 10:49:37 10:49:43 10:49:48 10:49:51 10:49:53 10:49:57 10:50:04 10:50:07 10:50:11 10:50:16 10:50:22 10:50:25 10:50:27 10:50:29 10:50:30 10:50:33 10:50:36 10:50:39 10:50:40 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

Page 73
10:52:18 10:52:21 10:52:22 10:52:25 10:52:33 10:52:35 10:52:40 10:52:46 10:52:48 10:52:51 10:52:53 10:52:56 10:53:00 10:53:04 10:53:08 10:53:14 10:53:16 10:53:26 10:53:31 10:53:33 10:53:35 10:53:39 10:53:42 10:53:49 10:53:52 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

that correct? MS. MOSS: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: That's what it states. MS. STEWART: Q Were you aware at the time that the ballot measure that ProtectMarriage.com was responsible for would have eliminated legal recognition for domestic relationships? MS. MOSS: Objection. Assumes legal facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I was aware that this language existed from that earlier organization. MS. STEWART: Q And at the time that organization was a project of California Renewal, i.e. in 2005, at that time were you aware that the ballot measure -- that it was promoting would eliminate domestic partnerships? MS. MOSS: Objection. Assumes legal facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I can only say that I was aware of what the language stated. MS. STEWART: Q So you were aware that the amendment that was being proposed would bar domestic partnerships from being valid or recognized as legal unions in California? MS. MOSS: Same objection.

little bit in some confusion about the name ProtectMarriage.com. So we've now I think, if I understand your answers correctly, established that there was an entity and a coalition that used the title "ProtectMarriage.com" in 2005; is that fair? A. There was a ballot measure committee in 2005 that used ProtectMarriage.com. Q. And there was also a coalition that used that terminology; correct? A. I believe -- I believe I've answered that. I believe that there was no formal coalition. Q. But there was a coalition -- informal? A. There were a variety of organizations, churches and individuals who agreed with the general direction of the ballot measure committee. Q. And was there an effort to circulate the measure that we just looked at as Exhibit 3 for signatures in 2005? A. To my knowledge, yes. Q. And was -- did that effort fail? A. Yes. Q. Do you know why it failed? A. I don't know the specific reason why it failed. I know it didn't receive enough signatures.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 74
10:53:55 10:53:59 10:54:00 10:54:05 10:54:16 10:54:21 10:54:25 10:54:28 10:54:33 10:54:36 10:54:36 10:54:39 10:54:41 10:54:44 10:54:55 10:54:58 10:55:05 10:55:09 10:55:15 10:55:22 10:55:30 10:55:38 10:55:43 10:55:46 10:55:50 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

Page 76
10:57:51 10:58:12 10:58:12 10:58:14 10:58:16 10:58:19 10:58:23 10:58:25 10:58:26 10:58:28 10:58:31 10:58:35 10:58:38 10:58:41 10:58:43 10:58:49 10:58:55 10:59:01 10:59:04 10:59:08 10:59:10 10:59:15 10:59:18 10:59:26 10:59:30 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

Q. Was there a difficulty raising the funds to get those signatures? A. I'm aware as far as the funding was very limited. Q. Who did the fundraising for that effort? MS. MOSS: To the extent that's publically known, you can respond. To the extent it would require you to reveal somebody whose association with that ballot measure committee is not known, I would direct you not to answer. THE WITNESS: I'm not aware. MS. STEWART: Q You're not aware at all or you're not aware of anyone non-public? A. I'm not aware of anyone at all. Q. I want to fast forward a little bit to 2008 -but before I do, I want to cover the period between the measure we were just talking about, 2005 and 2008, and ask you: Was the name "ProtectMarriage.com" used for any purpose, to your knowledge, between when the 2005 measure failed to get enough signatures and 2008? A. I believe that there had been -- actually, I'm not sure. I don't know. Q. Do you -- is it a failure of memory or you really you don't know at all? A. It could be both.

MS. STEWART: Can you read back his last answer. (Record read.) MS. STEWART: Q So I want to refer to that coalition that you just mentioned as the "ProtectMarriage.com coalition." To distinguish it from the "ProtectMarriage.com official ballot measure committee." Do you understand that distinction? A. Yes. Q. And I'm doing that so that we don't keep getting bogged down in our questioning "Well, which -are you referring to the entity, the official entity or are you referring more broadly to the coalition?" So do you understand that use of the term? A. I do. I -- however -- I believe I'm still at a place with a lack of understanding or a lack of agreement as to when we refer to a "coalition," you earlier used the term "member" and there were no such -there was no such entity. Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this: If you go to ProtectMarriage.com's website today, and I think this was true in 2008 as well, under the heading about ProtectMarriage.com it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a broad-based coalition of California families, community

Page 75
10:55:53 10:55:56 10:55:58 10:56:02 10:56:05 10:56:10 10:56:10 10:56:14 10:56:19 10:56:24 10:56:32 10:56:39 10:56:40 10:56:42 10:56:43 10:56:54 10:57:01 10:57:09 10:57:15 10:57:21 10:57:32 10:57:36 10:57:39 10:57:43 10:57:48 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

Page 77
10:59:35 10:59:40 10:59:44 10:59:48 10:59:52 10:59:54 10:59:59 10:59:59 11:00:02 11:00:03 11:00:06 11:00:08 11:00:10 11:00:13 11:00:18 11:00:24 11:00:26 11:00:29 11:00:30 11:00:33 11:00:38 11:00:42 11:00:46 11:00:49 11:00:49 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

Q. Okay. A. I'm -- I don't have a recollection. Q. Okay. Fair enough. In any event, in 2008, the name "ProtectMarriage.com" was used again; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Can you tell me the purposes for which the name "ProtectMarriage.com" was used in 2008? A. Well, ProtectMarriage.com was used for the ballot measure committee. And then once we received an initiative number, Yes on 8 was added to that. Q. Okay. So it was used for the ballot measure committee. Was it also used to describe a coalition? A. ProtectMarriage.com was -- has been -- during the ballot measure of '08, yes. When we would communicate about the measure, we would talk about the loose broad-based coalition. Q. For ease of reference, can we refer to that coalition as the "ProtectMarriage.com coalition"? A. Well, I -- I think that we haven't defined the term so that's my hesitancy. So I don't know that I'm comfortable saying there is ease to using that term. Q. Well, you just mentioned that --

leaders, religious leaders, pro family organizations and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to support Proposition 8." First of all, is that an accurate statement? A. It's an accurate statement to the degree that we have a an understanding of what "joined together" means. Q. And what does "join together" mean in that website? A. It means that we are like-minded towards the definition of marriage. Q. Does that mean that you work together towards the passage of Proposition 8? A. I think it meant that a number of different organizations, entities, churches worked towards the purpose of the passage. Did we work together? Not always. Q. So sometimes you worked together and sometimes you worked separately; is that fair? A. Well, actually, most -- those people who would say that they were part of that broad-based coalition were by no means under the authority or the direction of the ad hoc executive committee. Q. Fair enough. But they -- when this language -- and I

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

30 (Pages 114 to 117)
Page 114
01:20:07 01:20:09 01:20:10 01:20:12 01:20:18 01:20:22 01:20:28 01:20:36 01:20:49 01:21:31 01:21:39 01:21:42 01:21:46 01:21:59 01:22:01 01:22:04 01:22:07 01:22:09 01:22:19 01:22:21 01:22:24 01:22:29 01:22:31 01:22:35 01:22:40 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

Page 116
01:24:02 01:24:05 01:24:05 01:24:55 01:25:02 01:25:04 01:25:28 01:25:43 01:25:45 01:25:48 01:26:13 01:27:08 01:27:10 01:27:12 01:27:16 01:27:18 01:27:19 01:27:23 01:27:27 01:27:30 01:27:32 01:27:34 01:27:35 01:27:39 01:27:41 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

Was that one of the responsibilities of the executive committee? A. It was one of our strategies. Q. And were you personally involved in that effort of coordinating with the organizations churches and individuals that made up the coalition? A. I participated in communicating to churches and pastors. Q. Did anyone -- did any of the consultants that ProtectMarriage.com retained for the Prop 8 campaign also participate in coordinating with the organizations, churches and individuals that made up the ProtectMarriage coalition? A. To my knowledge, no. Q. Not even Shubert-Flint? A. Well, I continue to go back to the idea of coordinating. I think they were invited as I mentioned, but they didn't put those together. Q. Well, I'm not specifically -- I'm not referring to some specific -- from the nature of your answer from what you said, I want to be clear. I'm not referring to a conference call in particular. I'm just asking in general, did any of the consultants -- you know, did you charge them with some responsibility to coordinate with organizations and

"coordinating." But if you understand it, you can answer. THE WITNESS: I don't well enough. MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at an exhibit that will be marked 6. (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 6 was Marked for identification.) MS. STEWART: Q Take a moment, if you need to, to look at the document. Because I'm going to ask you if you recognize it and can tell me what it is. (Pause in the proceedings.) THE WITNESS: Okay. MS. STEWART: Q Do you recognize this as the income tax return for 2006 for the California Family Council Foundation? A. Yes. Q. Is the California Family Council Foundation the entity that we were talking about earlier today that we referred to as the California Family Council? Are there two entities or is it one? A. It is the same entity. Q. Thank-you. And is it part of your responsibility -- or let me ask more specifically. In 2006, was it part of your responsibility to

Page 115
01:22:45 01:22:49 01:22:51 01:22:55 01:22:57 01:22:59 01:23:03 01:23:05 01:23:12 01:23:14 01:23:15 01:23:19 01:23:26 01:23:30 01:23:34 01:23:37 01:23:39 01:23:40 01:23:43 01:23:47 01:23:48 01:23:50 01:23:55 01:23:58 01:24:01 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

Page 117
01:27:44 01:27:51 01:27:52 01:27:54 01:27:58 01:28:05 01:28:32 01:28:35 01:28:48 01:28:49 01:28:49 01:28:57 01:30:21 01:30:24 01:30:25 01:30:25 01:30:29 01:30:33 01:30:52 01:30:54 01:30:54 01:31:04 01:31:16 01:31:18 01:31:31 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

churches and individuals that made up the coalition, the broad ProtectMarriage coalition? MS. MOSS: I'll object to the term vague -- the term "coordination" is vague. THE WITNESS: I am struggling with it. MS. STEWART: Q Well, you did communicate with the churches and organizations and individuals that made up the coalition; correct? A. As an individual or as a committee? Q. As a committee. A. We certainly communicated with numerous groups. But I think that the manner in which you're posing the question seems to be an all or nothing. That's, kind of, how I'm interpreting it. Q. All or nothing how? A. You asked about Shubert-Flint -Q. Right. A. -- did they communicate through this and that and that and that. And the answer would be no, not to all of those groups. Q. But I guess what I'm asking is did they share in the responsibility of coordinating with the organizations and churches and individuals that made up the ProtectMarriage coalition? MS. MOSS: Same objection to the term

see that the tax returns for the entity were prepared and filed? A. Yes, ultimately. Q. And if you look at page 9 of this document, is that your signature on the document? A. Yes. MS. STEWART: Now, I'm going to ask you to take a look -(Ms. Piepmeier enters the room.) (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 7 was Marked for identification.) MS. STEWART: So I'm going to hand you Exhibit 7. Let me know when you've had a chance to review it. A. Okay. Q. And I'm going to ask you if this is the 2007 tax return for the California Family Council? A. Yes. MS. STEWART: Now, I'm going to ask you to look at Exhibit 8. (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 8 was Marked for identification.) MS. STEWART: Q And my question for this one is going to be whether this is the tax return for 2005 for California Renewal.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

51 (Pages 198 to 201)
Page 198
04:28:34 04:28:37 04:28:40 04:28:41 04:28:43 04:28:49 04:28:52 04:28:53 04:28:56 04:29:05 04:29:08 04:29:10 04:29:14 04:29:23 04:29:27 04:29:28 04:29:29 04:29:32 04:29:35 04:29:36 04:29:38 04:29:51 04:29:55 04:29:56 04:30:07 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

Page 200
04:32:03 04:32:08 04:32:12 04:32:13 04:32:13 04:32:15 04:32:19 04:32:22 04:32:24 04:32:27 04:32:56 04:33:00 04:33:05 04:33:09 04:33:13 04:33:16 04:33:18 04:33:18 04:33:19 04:33:21 04:33:24 04:33:26 04:33:27 04:33:34 04:33:49 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

Q. Well, it states that ProtectMarriage.com is now moving forward with another attempt to qualify a ballot measure. That would seem to indicate that the document was prepared and circulated before Proposition 8 had actually qualified for the ballot would it not? A. Yes. However, the ProtectMarriage.com that's referenced here is not the same ProtectMarriage.com that registered as a ballot measure committee. Q. And how do you know that? A. Well, because even members on this coalition were not members -- were not participating in -- were not actively participating in -- in the passage of Prop 8. Q. Okay. So were not actively participating in the passage of Prop 8 at what time period? A. During the campaign. Q. So when you said, "during the campaign," do you mean after the measure had qualified for the ballot? A. I -- I don't know. I don't know precisely the timeline of this. Q. In -- in 2008 when this brochure appears to have been produced, you were the -- I'm forgetting --

gathered -- I see -- were gathered in 2005. And that was the measure that didn't make it onto the ballot; is that what you're saying? A. Correct. Q. And now it says in the next paragraph that "ProtectMarriage.com is moving forward with another attempt to qualify a ballot measure." Is it your understanding that that refers to what eventually became Proposition 8? A. Yes. Q. Look at the middle panel on the second page of the document in the last piece of text in the bullet point. It says "In mid-2008, the California Supreme Court will decide whether the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, Proposition 22, is constitutionally protected." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So obviously this document was prepared before the California Supreme Court issued its decision in May of 2008; correct? A. Correct. Q. And was there a coalition of organizations that were in someway moving forward as of sometime in the middle of 2008 or early 2008 to qualify another

Page 199
04:30:13 04:30:18 04:30:19 04:30:23 04:30:26 04:30:38 04:30:44 04:30:48 04:30:53 04:30:56 04:30:58 04:30:58 04:31:00 04:31:06 04:31:10 04:31:12 04:31:15 04:31:19 04:31:25 04:31:32 04:31:33 04:31:43 04:31:46 04:31:51 04:31:57 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

Page 201
04:33:54 04:33:57 04:33:58 04:34:01 04:34:05 04:34:07 04:34:12 04:34:19 04:34:28 04:34:39 04:34:40 04:34:43 04:34:51 04:34:54 04:34:57 04:35:00 04:35:00 04:35:00 04:35:01 04:35:04 04:35:11 04:35:15 04:35:20 04:35:25 04:35:28 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

executive director of the California Family Council? MS. MOSS: Object to the extent I don't think it's been established when this brochure was, in fact, created. Whether it was -MS. STEWART: Q Let me just ask this: Let me go back to the second page and look at that right-hand panel again. And the paragraph above the one that's got a lot of bold-faced type, it says "The ProtectMarriage Coalition's volunteer effort gathered nearly 300,000 signatures through church communications." Do you see that? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that true that a coalition that called itself "ProtectMarriage" used volunteers to gather 300,000 signatures? A. I would probably take issue with the fact that it would be the ProtectMarriage coalition. I would say that there were a number of groups who participated -churches and otherwise -- who participated in attempting to gather signatures. Q. And when did the coalition succeed in gathering 300,000 signatures? A. I believe this refers to the -- the attempt in 2005. Q. If that's -- so the 300,000 signatures were

measure for the ballot? MS. MOSS: Object to the form of the question. I think again to the extent that there's been some disagreement about exactly what coalition means, to the extent you understand that term, you may answer the question. THE WITNESS: Well, clearly, the -- by referring to this last bullet point in mid-2008, the timing of this appears to have been either just before or during the petition-gathering phase. MS. STEWART: Q Fair enough. And was there -- the third panel says "ProtectMarriage.com is now moving" -- the third panel on the second page -- "ProtectMarriage.com is now moving forward with another attempt to qualify a ballot measure." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And is it your understanding that there was some kind of coalition or group -- of group in the first half of 2008 that were working to qualify -- to get the signatures to qualify what became Prop 8? A. I don't believe that there's any change in the definition that we have attempted to establish. And that is that this was a loose broad-based coalition, not

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

52 (Pages 202 to 205)
Page 202
04:35:36 04:35:49 04:35:55 04:36:01 04:36:02 04:36:02 04:36:07 04:36:10 04:36:17 04:36:19 04:36:21 04:36:24 04:36:27 04:36:28 04:36:28 04:36:32 04:36:33 04:36:38 04:36:40 04:36:42 04:36:45 04:36:49 04:36:52 04:36:57 04:37:04 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

Page 204
04:38:28 04:38:32 04:38:37 04:38:41 04:38:45 04:38:48 04:38:52 04:39:01 04:39:06 04:39:08 04:39:10 04:39:11 04:39:14 04:39:15 04:39:16 04:39:19 04:39:36 04:39:39 04:39:52 04:39:55 04:40:01 04:40:04 04:40:05 04:40:10 04:40:13 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

taking orders from any authoritative group. And these entities were like-minded about the passage of such a measure, but -- but that's -- that's the extent of the relationship. Q. Okay. So without changing that non-authoritative informal coalition -- definition of coalition, were the groups listed on the first page of this brochure moving forward with an attempt to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot? A. Individually, independently. Q. And one of those entities was the California Family Council? A. Correct. Q. And another was Focus on the Family? A. Yes. Q. And another was Concerned Women for America? A. I'm not aware of any activity that they were accomplishing in this timeline. Q. Do you know why they would have been listed on a California Family Council brochure as being part of the effort if they were not doing anything? A. I think there was -- I believe that this piece was created at the request of a -- a church that wanted information. And that that church asked that we might

that received it. Q. And I apologize, again, if I -- there's a lot of entities here, and so I'm not sure what I've asked about and what I haven't. I'm trying to keep track. But when did the official ballot measure committee for Proposition 8 actually form? A. The ballot committee formed the -- I'm doing the math here. I believe it was -MS. MOSS: That actually has been asked and answered earlier. THE WITNESS: I thought so. MS. MOSS: His testimony earlier was in mid-November, 2007. THE WITNESS: Thank-you. MS. STEWART: Q So why would you describe ProtectMarriage.com as a coalition in a brochure if a coalition of groups working to put a measure on the ballot if -- strike that. At the time this brochure was prepared by the California Family Council, there had actually been a ballot measure committee formed; is that right? A. I don't think that's been established in terms of the timeline of the creation of this (indicating). Q. Let me tell you that the title of the document in the document production has a date on -- in the Bates

Page 203
04:37:09 04:37:14 04:37:14 04:37:15 04:37:25 04:37:33 04:37:37 04:37:38 04:37:46 04:37:48 04:37:50 04:37:54 04:37:56 04:38:00 04:38:00 04:38:01 04:38:03 04:38:05 04:38:05 04:38:08 04:38:09 04:38:13 04:38:16 04:38:21 04:38:24 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

Page 205
04:40:29 04:40:32 04:40:35 04:40:41 04:40:45 04:40:48 04:40:50 04:40:54 04:40:57 04:41:00 04:41:05 04:41:05 04:41:11 04:41:19 04:41:21 04:41:22 04:41:22 04:41:26 04:41:30 04:41:30 04:41:33 04:41:36 04:41:46 04:41:49 04:41:49 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

list numerous groups that had expressed interest in its passage. Q. Okay. Would you have listed a group to be described as being involved or as working on attempting to qualify a ballot measure if it wasn't doing anything? A. I would have listed a group that was like-minded and whose -- yeah, I -- I would have listed a group that was like-minded. Q. Even if it had not in any way committed to work on the ballot measure? A. I would have asked each of these groups whether they would allow us to put their name on this. Q. Was that done in connection with preparing this brochure? A. I believe it was. Q. And were you the one who did it? A. No. Q. Do you know who did? A. No. Q. What was the -- to whom did this brochure ultimately go? A. Again, I'm not -- I'm not able to answer that. I expressed how -- how I think it came to be developed and for what purpose. But I don't know the population

number, and it's February 20, 2008. Now, I don't know what that means because I don't know how those numbers were put on there because your counsel produced the documents in a digital form. But does that help you in any way -A. No. Q. But we know that at some point before the Supreme Court decided and knowing that the court would decide in the middle of 2008, this document was prepared? A. Yes. Q. And we know from the "what you can do" section that it was talking about a million signatures being needed between now and Easter, 2008. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And what is the period within which you have to collect signatures for a ballot measure in California? A. 150 days. Q. So would it be fair to say that this document would have had to have been prepared approximately 150 days before Easter of 2008? A. Yes. Q. Thank-you.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

57 (Pages 222 to 225)
Page 222
05:17:17 05:17:20 05:17:25 05:17:37 05:17:40 05:18:02 05:18:02 05:18:38 05:18:40 05:18:43 05:18:46 05:18:48 05:18:51 05:18:52 05:19:00 05:19:04 05:19:08 05:19:09 05:19:11 05:19:13 05:19:16 05:19:21 05:19:25 05:19:27 05:19:31 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

Page 224
05:21:10 05:21:13 05:21:16 05:21:16 05:21:17 05:21:20 05:21:24 05:21:27 05:21:35 05:21:37 05:21:40 05:21:44 05:21:48 05:21:52 05:21:55 05:21:58 05:22:03 05:22:07 05:22:13 05:22:17 05:22:18 05:22:18 05:22:29 05:22:32 05:22:36 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

sometimes and with little Cs other times, was that a practice in your communications? A. I'm sorry, I don't recall. MS. STEWART: I'm going to ask you to look at a document labeled Exhibit 28. (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 28 was Marked for identification.) MS. STEWART: Q Is this a press release that was issued by ProtectMarriage.com? A. Well, yes. Q. Who's Chip White? A. Chip White was a contractor in our communications room. Q. And in the third paragraph, last sentence says "Our coalition has no plans to seek any changes in that law, that law I think referring to Proposition 8." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What is the reference to "our coalition," what does that mean? A. It's -- in my opinion, it's a misstatement and should have said "the executive committee." Q. Why do you say that? A. Because we -- we did not speak on behalf of people who participated cooperatively in the campaign.

and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to support Proposition 8." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So Isn't it fair to say that the campaign frequently referred to ProtectMarriage.com in its communications as the broad-based coalition that you were talking about? MS. MOSS: I'm sorry, could you clarify? When he was talking about here or -MS. STEWART: Q Isn't it true that ProtectMarriage.com in its communications with the public frequently referred to ProtectMarriage.com as a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations, and individuals? A. I don't -- I couldn't stipulate to frequently. Q. Did this footer, if you will, appear on many releases issued by ProtectMarriage.com? A. I'm not aware. Q. Okay. Did it appear on the organization's website? A. I -- I would need to look through here. But it strikes me that we've already seen it from a website piece.

Page 223
05:19:35 05:19:37 05:19:43 05:19:45 05:19:54 05:19:58 05:20:00 05:20:01 05:20:02 05:20:05 05:20:24 05:20:25 05:20:37 05:20:39 05:20:45 05:20:51 05:20:53 05:20:56 05:20:56 05:20:59 05:20:59 05:21:00 05:21:00 05:21:04 05:21:07 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

Page 225
05:22:37 05:22:40 05:22:43 05:22:53 05:22:59 05:23:04 05:23:09 05:23:11 05:23:16 05:23:19 05:23:27 05:23:32 05:23:36 05:23:39 05:23:46 05:23:49 05:23:53 05:24:01 05:24:06 05:24:11 05:24:16 05:24:25 05:24:29 05:24:35 05:24:35 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

Q. So you did not speak on behalf of the coalition of organizations that supported Proposition 8? A. Well, again, you're asking me if we spoke on behalf of a loose broadly-based group of organizations that did many things on -- by their own will. Q. And yes, I am. A. And the answer is no. Q. Okay. I'd like you to go back and take a look at Exhibit I think it's 22. A. The sign. Q. 25, I'm sorry. 25. Would you look at the second page of that document. I think you testified earlier that this was a press release issued by ProtectMarriage.com. And you see on the second page there are references to a number of entities -A. Yes. Q. -- in bold. And the last one is ProtectMarriage.com. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And it says "ProtectMarriage.com is a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations,

Q. How are voters to know which use you were making of the term "ProtectMarriage.com" when you use that term in public communications? A. How -- how are voters to know -- sorry. Q. I'm a voter. I receive a communication from ProtectMarriage.com talking about the efforts of ProtectMarriage.com. How am I as a voter to know whether that communication is referring to the broad-based coalition described on this document or just the executive committee of the primarily formed ballot committee? A. Within these two documents, I see the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign which refers to the committee itself. I see -- I believe there was another one that referred to it in a different way on the same page, I'm not finding it right now, however. And so on document 25, Yes on Proposition 8 ProtectMarriage.com campaign, that's -- that's the difficulty I'm having as we discuss this in that we may refer to the campaign in general. And many organizations who make reference to the passage of Prop 8. But then there's -- there's a very clear campaign committee that's headed up by a executive committee. Q. Did you expect the voters in reviewing

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

67 (Pages 262 to 265)
Page 262
06:50:58 06:51:03 06:51:13 06:51:18 06:51:22 06:51:25 06:51:28 06:51:37 06:51:43 06:51:43 06:51:49 06:51:51 06:51:54 06:52:02 06:52:15 06:52:21 06:52:34 06:52:47 06:52:52 06:52:55 06:53:00 06:53:03 06:53:04 06:53:06 06:53:11 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

Page 264
06:54:17 06:54:17 06:54:21 06:54:23 06:54:27 06:54:29 06:54:29 06:54:30 06:54:31 06:54:32 06:54:35 06:54:36 06:54:41 06:54:44 06:54:53 06:54:58 06:55:00 06:55:02 06:55:06 06:55:20 06:55:22 06:55:35 06:55:42 06:55:45 06:55:50 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

Catholic Bishops to be part of the coalition as we defined it a few minutes ago? A. By saying that -- the definition that we used a few minutes ago talked about activity and action. And in my clarification regarding the California Catholic Conference of Bishops, I referred to an endorsement versus an activity. And the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops is more of an endorsement than it is an activity. Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a website called MarriageMattersToKids.org? A. No. Q. Did ProtectMarriage.com, the primary ballot committee, the narrow ProtectMarriage.com, have a U-Tube channel that it used to communicate with voters? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. The Rock Church, Pastor McPherson's church in San Diego, is that part of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition as we defined it a few minutes ago? A. Actively working to pass Proposition 8? Q. Yes. A. The Rock Church did so, yes. Q. And did the Skyline Church also do so? A. Yes.

MS. STEWART: -- know. MS. MOSS: But even if he knows something, it doesn't mean that you've established that he has a basis for accurate or complete or detailed information. MS. STEWART: I'm not suggesting that by my question. MS. MOSS: Well -MS. STEWART: Make your objection. That's all right. Q. So what role did Pacific Justice Institute play, to your knowledge? A. Pacific Justice Institute promoted the passage of Prop 8 on their own website. Q. Did the American Family Association, to your knowledge, promote the passage of Proposition 8 on its own website? A. I'm not sure. Q. Did Focus on the Family promote passage of Proposition 8 on its website? A. Yes. Q. Did the Family -- let me reframe that. Did the -- I think you testified earlier that you did not know whether the Mormon Church had a website specifically to promote Proposition 8; correct? A. Correct.

Page 263
06:53:17 06:53:23 06:53:25 06:53:28 06:53:28 06:53:30 06:53:39 06:53:43 06:53:48 06:53:52 06:53:52 06:53:56 06:53:57 06:53:59 06:54:00 06:54:02 06:54:06 06:54:06 06:54:09 06:54:11 06:54:13 06:54:13 06:54:15 06:54:15 06:54:16 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

Page 265
06:55:50 06:55:55 06:55:59 06:56:02 06:56:08 06:56:16 06:56:21 06:56:25 06:56:28 06:56:32 06:56:35 06:56:38 06:56:42 06:56:46 06:56:48 06:56:51 06:56:52 06:56:55 06:57:02 06:57:06 06:57:09 06:57:13 06:57:17 06:57:24 06:57:26 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

Q. And did Pastor Garlow and Pastor McPherson also do so? A. As the heads of those churches? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Did -- never mind. How about The Pacific Justice Institute, did that entity, to your knowledge, play any role in the passage of Proposition 8? A. Yes. Q. What role did The Pacific Justice Institute play? MS. MOSS: Lack of foundation. But to the extent you know, you can answer. MS. STEWART: You know what, I'd stipulate that you can preserve that objection for every question if you want -MS. MOSS: It's not for every question. I want it to be clear on the record that you're asking him areas that he may have limited knowledge. But I want it to be clear for the record he -MS. STEWART: I'm saying "to your knowledge." MS. MOSS: -- established -MS. STEWART: Obviously, if he doesn't know -MS. MOSS: Well --

Q. Do you know whether the Mormon Church used any website to promote passage of Proposition 8? A. No, I don't know. Q. Is the Family Research Council a part of the coalition that we defined earlier, shortly ago that works to pass Proposition 8? A. You mean the vague non-descript loose association that you're referring to as the coalition? Q. Yes. A. Family Research Council participated in the promotion of the passage of Proposition 8. Q. And not only am I using it that way, but ProtectMarriage.com in its communications has sometimes used it that way; correct? A. I don't know that that wording has ever been used. Q. Well, the Exhibit 25 that we've gone back to a few times uses the phrase "coalition" referring to a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organization and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to support Proposition 8." That's the coalition I'm referring to, that description. Do you understand that? A. I understand that you're saying that, yes.

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

68 (Pages 266 to 269)
Page 266
06:57:29 06:57:32 06:57:37 06:57:43 06:57:47 06:57:58 06:58:02 06:58:04 06:58:07 06:58:10 06:58:14 06:58:17 06:58:21 06:58:27 06:58:30 06:58:34 06:58:38 06:58:40 06:58:44 06:58:46 06:58:46 06:58:49 06:58:52 06:58:55 06:59:00 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

Page 268
07:01:01 07:01:11 07:01:13 07:01:54 07:01:58 07:02:00 07:02:24 07:02:26 07:02:29 07:02:31 07:02:34 07:02:35 07:02:37 07:02:38 07:02:40 07:02:44 07:02:54 07:02:57 07:02:57 07:03:22 07:03:25 07:03:27 07:03:29 07:03:34 07:03:35 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

Q. Was the Family Research Council a part of that coalition? A. I would probably go back to take issue with what I'm understanding to be your interpretation of this coalition. My sense is that you -- my sense is that you're inferring that it's something monolithic and that the committee is authoritarian. Q. I'm not at all. I'm not inferring anything of the sort. I'm taking the language used by ProtectMarriage.com in its press release and in which -A. This is -- I see what you're saying. Q. -- without any other adjectives or descriptors of how it functions. But rather a -- I'm using the term "coalition" or "The ProtectMarriage.com coalition" to refer to a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to support Proposition 8." That's it. That's the definition. Okay? A. Okay. Q. Can we have that understanding that that's how I'm using the word in my question? A. Well, actually, I would prefer that we could understand that it's a vague non-descript loose assimilation of groups attempting to pass Proposition 8.

that coalition? THE WITNESS: Can I? MS. MOSS: Yes. (Pause in the proceedings.) THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? (Record read.) THE WITNESS: As I understand the definition that you're using for "coalition," no. MS. STEWART: Q And was Advocates for Faith and Freedom a part of that coalition? A. No. Q. And how about the Western Center for Law and Policy? A. No. Q. And how about Fieldstead and Company? A. No. Q. How about the Concerned Women for America? A. No. MS. STEWART: Duly noted, thank-you, Mr. Pugno. We will stop and give everybody a rest until morning. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of tape No. 5 in volume 1. And we're off the record at 7:03. COURT REPORTER: For the record, who would like a copy?

Page 267
06:59:11 06:59:13 06:59:49 06:59:51 06:59:57 07:00:03 07:00:07 07:00:08 07:00:09 07:00:13 07:00:16 07:00:19 07:00:21 07:00:22 07:00:25 07:00:29 07:00:34 07:00:38 07:00:40 07:00:43 07:00:45 07:00:48 07:00:51 07:00:53 07:00:55 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

Page 269
07:03:45 07:03:47 07:03:47 07:03:47 07:03:47 07:03:47 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

MS. STEWART: Can you read that back. (Record read.) MS. STEWART: Q Have you ever referred to the coalition of groups that worked to pass Proposition 8 in the way you just stated a minute, that is as a vague, non-descript, assimilation of groups attempting to pass Proposition 8? A. No. Q. I would prefer to stick to the description that ProtectMarriage.com has used on its own materials rather than come up with something completely different, if you don't mind. And it's my understanding that that description is still on ProtectMarriage.com's website today. And it's the same language that's in this Exhibit 25, a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to support Proposition 8. So that's how I'm using the term coalition in my question. And you can say "yes" or "no" and if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. So with that understanding of the term "coalition," was the Family Research Council apart of

MS. MOSS: Yes. (Whereupon, the deposition adjourned. At 7:03 p.m.)

_________________________ RONALD PRENTICE

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

69 (Pages 270 to 273)
Page 270
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

Page 272
1 2

DEPOSITION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Ss. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) )

ERRATA SHEET

3 4 5 6

PAGE LINE ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _

CHANGE _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________

I LESLIE CASTRO, CSR, hereby certify: I am a duly qualified Shorthand Reporter in the State of California, holder of Certificate Number 8876 issued by the Court Reporter's Board of California and which is in full force and effect. (Fed R. Civ. P. 28(a)). I am authorized to administer oaths of affirmations pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2093(b), and prior to being examined, the deponent was first duly sworn by me. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a), 30(f) (1)). I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, nor am I financially interested in this action. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 28). I am the deposition officer that stenographically recorded the testimony in the foregoing deposition and the foregoing transcript is a true record

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

I, RONALD PRENTICE, have made the following changes to my deposition taken in the matter of PERRY, ET AL. vs. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL. taken on DECEMBER 17, 2009. DATE:______________ ________________________________ RONALD PRENTICE

25

Page 271
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

Page 273
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

of the testimony given by the deponent. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f) (1)). Before completion of the deposition, review of the transcript [ ] was [X ] was not requested. If requested, any changes made by the deponent (and provided to the reporter) during the period allowed, are appended hereto. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)).

CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS

I, RONALD PRENTICE, hereby declare that I have read the foregoing testimony, and the same is true and a correct transcription of my said testimony except as I have corrected.

________________________ Signature

Dated: 28th of December, 2009.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

_________________________ LESLIE CASTRO, CSR State of California CSR License No. 8876

________________________ Date

BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES [phone]

70 (Page 274)
Page 274
BONNIE L. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTING SERVICE 41 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 1605 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 [phone] January 4, 2010 Ronald Prentice c/o Nicole J. Moss, Esq. Cooper & Kirk 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: Perry, et al. vs. Schwarzenegger, et al. Dear Mr. Prentice: You are hereby notified that pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019(E), your deposition is available for your review within 35 days from the date of this letter. If you are represented by an attorney in this matter contact your attorney before contacting this office. Do not ask that we send you the original deposition. State law does not allow us to do so. Yours very truly, Leslie Castro, CSR Bonnie L. Wagner & Associates CC: Original Transcript All Counsel