FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
In Pro Per
Petitioner and Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE; DANIEL ZINGALE, DIRECTOR; ANDREW GEORGE, SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL, HMO HELP CENTER; DOES 1- 100
Respondent and Defendant
DECLARATION OF JACQUELYN FINNEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S TELEPHONIC RULING (7/24/2003)
AND DENIAL OF ORAL ARGUMENT (EXHIBITS) RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, FOR ORDER TO COMPEL AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
Date: October 16, 2003
I, JACQUELYN FINNEY, hereby declare as follows:
I am the plaintiff In Pro Per in the above-captioned case.
Attached hereto as Exhibit No.1 is a true and accurate copy of the Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling which I obtained from the San Diego Country Superior Court's website. This document is identified as follows:
"SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
THE FOLLOWING IS A TELEPHONIC RULING FOR 7/24/2003
DEPARTMENT #30, THE HON. THOMAS P. NUGENT PRESIDING.
CASE NUMBER GIN024734"
Attached hereto as Exhibit No.2 is a true and accurate copy of the Department of Managed Health Care's Examination Announcement for Staff Counsel III, which I obtained from the Department's website.
Attached hereto as Exhibit No.3 is a true and accurate copy of the Department of Managed Health Care's Examination Announcement for Nurse Consultant II, which I obtained from the Department's website.
Attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of an e-mail sent to me on Friday, July 11, 2003 at 1:06 p.m. from the Department of Managed Health Care, SUBJECT:
"Department of Managed Health Care Update—Patients' Rights"
I make this declaration in support of my Motion to Reconsider the Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 on the basis of new law, circumstances and facts pertaining to my May 1, 2003 Motion.
This Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling in and of itself constitutes new law pertaining to the definition and wrongful limitation of my cause of action for breach of contract that contradicts this Court's February 20, 2003 Ruling without prior notice and without disclosure of the Court's statement of factual findings, analysis and conclusions.
One day subsequent to the Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling, the date was set for October 7, 2003 re: the recall election of Governor Gray Davis. If the Governor is recalled, material witnesses and the documents in their possession will likely be unavailable to me and/or the difficulty of my access to them will increase, in conjunction with the substantial risk of spoliation of evidence.
The Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling ignored my Request for a Protective Order that requests defendants' attorneys to reasonably accommodate my polio disability.
The Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling is manifestly unjust and creates substantial inequity between the parties. It is my intention to notice all government witnesses as soon as possible. The Court's imposition of sanctions has chilled the exercise of my rights pursuant to the Discovery Act.
The Court's Ruling and refusal to entertain oral argument violated my rights, among which include my 14th Amendment Right not to be deprived of my property by the imposition of unjust sanctions without due process of law.
The Court's July 24, 2003 Ruling should be reconsidered and rescinded in its entirety, as it is so offensive to the U.S./California Constitutions and to California Public Policy as to be prejudicial to recognized standards of morality and to the general interests and health and safety of citizens to be free of unconscionable coercion by a State regulatory agency acting in conspiracy with an entity it licenses and regulates to render contract benefits illusory.
I have read the foregoing motion and this declaration, consisting of these exhibits and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Motion and Declaration are true and correct.
Executed on this 4th day of August, 2003 at Encinitas, California.
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
2003 AUG -4 PM 2: 55
NORTH COUNTY DIVISION