12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 EDWARD W. HUNT, in his official ) CASE NO. 01CECG03182 capacity as District Attorney of Fresno ) 15 County, and in his personal capacity as a ) NOTICE OF LODGING AND LODGING OF citizen and taxpayer, et. aI., ) FEDERAL AUTHORITIES 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) Date: April 10, 2002 17 ) Time: 3:00 p.m. v. ) Dept.: 98A 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; WILLIAM ) 19 LOCKYER, Attorney General of the State of~ California, et. aI., ) 20 Defendants. ) 21 -------------------------) 22 Plaintiffs hereby lodges the following federal authorities cited in our Reply to Defendants' 23 Opposition for Preliminary Injunction: 24 l. Crandon v. United States (1990) 494 US 152 [110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132]. 25 2. Davis v. Erdmann (10th Cir. 1979) 607 F.2d 917. 26 3. Evans v. u.s. Parole Com'n (7th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 262. 27 4. F.J Vollmer Co., Inc. v. Higgins (D.C.Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 448 [306 U.S.App.D.C. 140]. 28 1 NOTICE OF LODGING OF AUTHORITIES AP~. 4. 2002 5: 16PM NO. 2576 P. 8 -- 1 C.D. Michel- S.B.N. 144258 TRUTANICH • MICHEL, LLP 2 Port of Los Angeles 407 North Harbor Boulevard 3 San Pedro, California 90731 (310) 548-0410 4 .~ ~'l ~[DJ Stephen P. Halbrook 5 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN p, HALBROOK APR • ~~ 20~~ 10560 Main Street.1 Suite 404 6 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 FR~SNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COU~T (703) 352-7276 Ev 7 • ----:Cr""'l:X-.=DE::;;"PU;;-;'l'( Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 039193 8 BENENSON & KATES 22608 North East 2691h Avenue 9 Battleground, Washington 98604 (360) 666-2688 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 EDWARD W. HUNT, in his official ) CASE NO. 01CECG03182 capacity as District Attorney of Fresno ) 15 COlmty, and in his personal capacity as a ) NOTICE OF LODGING AND LODG~NG OF. citizen and taxpayer, et. al., ) FEDERAL AUTHORITIES 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) Date: April 10, 2002 17 ) Time: 3:00 p.m. v. ) Dept.: 98A 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; WILLIAM ) 19 LOCKYER, Attorney Genera] of the State of~ California, et. aI., ) 20 Defendants. ) 21 ---------------------------------------------) 22 Plaintiffs hereby lodges the following federal authorities cited in our Reply to Defendants' 23 Opposition for Preliminary Injunction: 24 1. Crandon v. United States (1990) 494 US 152 [110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132). 25 2. Davis v. Erdmann (10th Cir. 1979) 607 F .2d 917. 26 3. Evans v. US. Parole Com'n (7th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 262. 27 4. F.J Vollmer Co., Inc. v. Higgins (D.C.Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 448 [306 U.S.App.D.C. 140]. 28 NOTICE OF LODGING OF AUTHORITIES 1 C.D. Michel- S.B.N. 144258 TRUTANICH • MICHEL, LLP 2 Port of Los Angeles 407 North Harbor Boulevard 3 San Pedro, California 90731 (310) 548-0410 4 Stephen P. Halbrook 5 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN P. HALBROOK 10560 Main Street., Suite 404 6 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (703) 352-7276 7 Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 039193 8 BENENSON & KATES 22608 North East 269th Avenue 9 Battleground, Washington 98604 (360) 666-2688 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 EDWARD W. HUNT, in his official ) CASE NO. 01CECG03182 capacity as District Attorney of Fresno ) 15 County, and in his personal capacity as a ) NOTICE OF LODGING AND LODGING OF citizen and taxpayer, et. aI., ) FEDERAL AUTHORITIES 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) Date: April 10, 2002 17 ) Time: 3 :00 p.m. v. ) Dept.: 98A 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; WILLIAM ) 19 LOCKYER, Attorney General of the State of~ California, et. aI., ) 20 Defendants. ) 21 ---------------------------) 22 Plaintiffs hereby lodges the following federal authorities cited in our Reply to Defendants' 23 Opposition for Preliminary Injunction: 24 1. Crandon v. United States (1990) 494 US 152 [110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132]. 25 2. Davis v. Erdmann (lOth Cir. 1979) 607 F.2d 917. 26 3. Evans v. u.s. Parole Com'n (7th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 262. 27 4. F.J. Vollmer Co., Inc. v. Higgins (D.C.Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 448 [306 U.S.App.D.C. 140]. 28 1 NOTICE OF LODGING OF AUTHORITIES 1 5. FJ Vollmer Co., Inc. v. Magaw (D.C.Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 591 [322 U.S.App.D.C. 193]. 2 6. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (1972) 405 U.S. 540,544 [92 S.Ct. 1113,31 3 L.Ed.2d 424]. 4 7. North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem (1985) 419 U.S. 601,606-08 [95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L. Ed. 2d 751]. 5 8. Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 [108 S.Ct. 849,99 L.Ed.2d 1]. 6 9. Peoples Rights Organization, Inc. v. City of Columbus (6th Cir. 1998) 152 F.3d 7 522. 8 10. San Jacinto Savings & Loan v. Kacal (5th Cir. 1991) 928 F.2d 697. 9 11. United States v. Brady (D.Colo. 1989) 710 F.Supp. 290. 10 12. United States v. Seven Miscellaneous Firearms (D.D.C. 1980) 503 F.Supp. 565. 11 13. United States v. Thompson/Center Arms (1992) 504 U.S. 505 [112 S.Ct. 2102, 119 L.Ed.2d 308]. 12 13 Date: April 3 , 2002 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF LODGING OF AUTHORITIES 1 Page 1 110 S.Ct. 997 108 L.Ed.2d 132,58 USLW 4234,36 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 75,795 (Cite as: 494 U.S. 1S2, 110 S.Ct. 997) P' policy. Supreme Court of the United States ill Statutes E?241(1) Lawrence H. CRANDON, et a1., Petitioners, 361 k241 (1) Most Cited Cases v. UNITED STATES. Where governing standard in civil action is set forth in BOEING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, a criminal statute, it is appropriate to apply the rule of v. lenity in resolving any ambiguity in the ambit of the UNITED STATES. statute's coverage. Nos. 88-931, 88-938. ill Statutes E?241(1) 361 k241(l) Most Cited Cases Argued Nov. 6, 1989. Decided Feb. 27, 1990. Rule of lenity serves to ensure both that there is fair warning of the boundaries of the criminal conduct and that legislatures, not the courts, define criminal Government brought action against former employees liability. who had received lump-sum payments from their private employer upon leaving to enter into government ill United States E?SO.10(1) service and brought action against the private employer 393kSO.l O( 1 ) Most Cited Cases to recover the amounts paid. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Violation of statute prohibiting payment of salary of Claude M. Hilton, 1., 653 F.Supp. 1381. entered government employee by someone else or receipt of judgment for employer and employees, and supplemental salary by government employee from an Government appealed. The Court of Appeals for the outside source either is, or is not, committed at the time Fourth Circuit, 845 F.2d 476, affirmed in part and that payment is made. 18 U.S.CA. § 209(a). reversed in part. The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that employment status at the time that payment is ill United States E?SO.10(1) made is an element of the offense of receipt of 393k50.1 0(1) Most Cited Cases supplemental salary by a government employee from an outside source or payment of the supplemental salary ill United States E?S2 by the outside source. 393k52 Most Cited Cases Reversed. Employment status is an element of the offenses of receipt by a government employee of supplemental Justice Scalia filed an opllllOn concurring in the salary from an outside source and payment of judgment in which Justices O'Connor and Kennedy supplemental salary by an outside source to a joined. government employee. 18 U.S.CA. !i 209(a). ill Statutes E?241(1) West Headnotes 361 k241 ( 1) Most Cited Cases ill Statutes E?184 Because construction of a criminal statute must be 361 kl84 Most Cited Cases guided by the need for fair warning, it is rare that legislative history or statutory policies will support a ill Statutes E?20S construction of the statute broader than that clearly 361k205 Most Cited Cases warranted by the text. In determining the meaning of a statute, court looks not III United States E?SO.10(1) only to the particular statutory language but to the 393kSO.IO( I) Most Cited Cases design of the statute as a whole and to its object and Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Page 2 ill United States <8:=52 Government service was clearly erroneous. 393k52 Most Cited Cases Held: Section 209(a) does not apply to a severance Congress may appropriately enact prophylactic rules payment that is made to encourage the payee to accept that are intended to prevent even the appearance of Government employment, but is made before the payee wrongdoing and that may apply to conduct that has becomes a Government employee. Pp. 1001-1007. caused no actual injury to the United States; legislation designed to prohibit and to avoid potential conflicts of (a) Section 209(a),s text indicates that employment interest in the performance of governmental service is status is an element of the offense.