IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Alice Novoa-Benson, Contestant,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

) 1 1 1 1

Alma Vildosola, J.P.2 Elect: et al, 1 Contestees. 1

Case Number CV201000977

WRIT of INJUNCTION Opmuant to AzRCivP Rule65(h))

This is a written formal command, issued from, and under the authority and seal of this court, requiring the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona, and by his relating of orders, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with his official office shall not declare elected, direct the issuance of nor deliver to, Alma Vildosola, J.P. 2 Elect for the County of Cochise, State of Arizona, a certificate of election, signed by the secretary of state and authenticated with the great seal of the state until such time as this Court may order otherwise (pusuant to A.R.S. 16-650).

Alice Novoa-Benson, Pro Per 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane McNeal, Arizona 85617 Phone: 520) 266-2753

IN THE --- - - - - ' OF THE STAEOF; W W - f , tW#

5)2frn T

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

Alice Novoa-Benson, Contestant,

Alma Vitdosola, et al, Contestees.

Case Number:CV 201000977

Application for WRIT of PRELIMfNARY

INJUNCTION

A.RS. 12-1801: Judges of the superior court may grant writs of injunction:

1. When it appears that the party applying for the writ is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief or any part thereof requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the applicant.

2. When, pending litigation, it appears that a party is doing some act respecting the subject of litigation, or threatens or is about to do some act, or is procuring or suffering some act to be done, in violation of the rights of the applicant, which would tend to render the judgment ineffectual.

3. This request for writ of preliminary injunction is not within A.R.S. 12-1 802. "Prohibition upon granting injunctions for certah plrposes: An injunction shall not be granted. 6. To prevent the exercise of a public or private office in a lawful manner by the person in possession.", nor any number of A.R.S. 12-1802 in toto.

4.Whereas, the election contest grounds which are the basis of this instant suit encompasses the ineligibility of one of the contestees to the office elected to and the legality of the votes cast, and litigation is ensued to determine that matter, it is a reasonable request of the Contestant that the issuance of an injunction to comply with A.R.S. 16650. "Declaration of election to office; delivery of cemficate of election: The secretary of state shall declare elected the person receiving the highest number of votes cast for each office for which the nominees filed nominating petitions and papers with the of state pursuant to section 16-31 1, subsection B and shall, unless enjoined ftom so doing by an order of court, deliver to each such person, upon compliance with -- the - provisions .-. imposed by law upon candidates for office as conditions precedent to the issuance of the certificates, a certificate of election, signed by the secretary of state and authenticated with the great seal of the state.", be so granted and issued from this Honorable Court.

5. This action is predicated on the advancement of evidence to halt the seating of an ineligible candidate and to aUow that person to be seated is another action which is to be avoided by the filing of this instant action, and the allowance of the seating of the particular oontestee in this matter would be prejudicid to the Cantestant.

6. An order of injunction is hereto attached for this Honorable Court to issue under the seal of this Honorable Court.

Respectfully Submitted, his 3 0 ~ a y of Frn &201 o

Alice Novoa-Benson, Pro Per

b- 13,- 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane McNegl, Arizona 85617 Phone: 520) 266-2753

tv icz U COCHISE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Office of the Court Administrator

ALICIA NOVOA BENSON, etc.

REASSIGNMENT CV201000977

I I 1 I I I ALMA VILDOSOLA, etc.

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2010-10, In Re: Regular and Special

Assignments of Judges, AND the HONORABLE ANN R. LITTRELL having

recused itself, AND having referred this matter to the Court Administrator's Office

for reassignment,

This case is REASSIGNED to Honorable JAMES L. CONLOGUE, Division

Five, for all fwther proceedings.

PREVIOUS DIFSIONS: DIV. IV (Recusal)

DATED: D DISTRIBUTE

xc: Alice Novoa-Benson, 49 16 W. Tumbleweed Lane, McNeal, AZ 856 17 Hon. James L. Conlogue, Division Five Court Admin./Case Mgmt.

FILED

This matter was assigned to this Division on December 1,201 0. Prior to that assignment, the Clerk of the Court issued a Writ of Injunction. The issuance of the writ was not authorized by the Court.

c # # # y flf

Defendant Vildosola filed a Response to the original Complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 19, 2010 and it does not appear that any defendant was served with the amended complaint.

IT IS ORDERED quashing and dismissing the Writ of Injunction erroneously issued on November 30,201 0.

ALICIA NOVOA BENSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALMA VILDOSOLA, CHRISTINE MODES, KEN BENNETT and DON CROCETTI,

Defendants. a

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve all necessary parties with the amended complaint, together with a copy of this Order, on or before December 8,2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the matte for a telephonic status conference on Thursday, December 9,2010 at 8:30 am. The parties and counsel may appear telephonically by calling (520) 432-8499.

HON. JAMES L. CONLOGUE DIVISION V By: James L. Conlogue 12/01/10 Superior Court Judge

Case No. CV201000977

ORDER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the amended complaint for evidentiary hearing on Thursday, December 16,2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Division Five.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 201 0.

C U t'

file stamp only Dik l iL I 1-1 ;$:?!;

LERW SU;:EI[M~ C C U ~ T

3 ' f e r - .

James L@dogue, Sufior Court Judge

mailedldistributed: xc: Alice Novoa-Benson, 49 16 West Tumbleweed Lane, McNeal, AZ 856 17

James L. Riley, Esq., P.O. Box 1035, Bisbee, AZ 85603 County Attorney (Hanson) Attorney General-Elections Division, 1275 W. Washington, ~hoen'ix, AZ 85007

Alice Noma-Benwn, Pro Per 4916 West Tumbkweed Lane

McNeal, Arizona 8 56 1 7

Phone: 520) 266-2753

FILED

ZOlODEC-6 PH 4rM

IN AND FOR THE COW OFCOCHISE- DIVISION FIVE

Alice Novoa-Benson,

Contestant,

1 1 1 1 )

. . 1 A h a Vildosola, J.P.2 Elect: er al, )

Conres tees. 1

Case Number: CV 201000977

before the Honorable James L. Conlogue

AFFIDAVIT OF

REQUEST FOR RECUSATION

I, Alice Novoa-Benson, PLaindff in Case No. CV201000977,4916 W. Tumbleweed Lane, McNeal, Arizona, rquest the rccrwal of the Honorable

James L. Conlogue, Superior Court Judge, Division V.

A.R.S. 12409 Change of judge; grounds; affidavit A. If either party to a civil action in a superior court f i r an af fdvi t alleging

any of the grounds specified in subsection B, the judge shdl at once transfer the action to another division of the court if there is more than one division, or shall

request s judge of the superior court of another county to preside a t the trial of the action.

B. Grounds which may be deged as provided in subsection A for change of

judge are: 5. That the party f h g the has cause to believe and does believe that on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot

obtain a fair and impartial trial.

Reason 1: Case No. CV201000977, Novoa-Beason vs Vildosola, there is believed to be

a conflict of interest, bein8 that the be on or able ~ame Conlope is an associate and familiar

with James L. Riley, Esq., the Honorable Donna Beumler, and Denise I Lundin, Clerk of rhe

Superior Courc whom is one of Vildosola's greatest defenders. (example: At the Hearing on

Contest of Election, Case 200600834, 'Primary 2006' Petitioner had to show up on October

18,2006, one day shorcof the scheduled hearing which was set for October 19,2006.

Reason 2; A derk from the Honorable Wallace R. Hoggact's office called Petitioner,

- at or about 9;00 A.M., and told Contestant she had to show up in an hour or Case

-No,CV200600834, would be dismissed. The derk said a judge from out of rown was there for

other cases and would do Contestant's also. Contestant stated she was not ready, the clerk

warned Contestant again, so Contestant had to go, leaving the evidence behind. Contestant

made an oral Motion for a Continuance before the Honorable Michael Miller and ic

was denied. Also Contestant gave a letter, Motion for a Concinuance, chat is the only

document Contestant gave at that hearing. Thereafter, Contestant went to the Superior Cuurt

of Arizona'County Of Cochise after General Election, 2006, to file a timely Affidavit of

Contest, since the Aff'ivir of Contest for the primary election Hearing held on October 18,

2006, the main argument was tbac Statement of Contest was not filed on time. When

Contestant was about to file, Denise I Lundin, Clerk of the Superior Court, came to the derk

window and told Contestant that the case was closed, Contestant responded that this was a

new Contest, Denise I llundin refused to accept the fiting and refused to file the new Affidavit

of Conrest for the General Election against Vildosola. Contestant was not made aware of the

hearing rhat took place on December 14,2006, until Contestant received, in the mail, the

Notice of Appearance for Case No. 201000977, December 3,2010. It is apparent rhat the

Respondent Vildosola and her Counsel James I. Riley knew about it. James I. Riley Esq. made

reference of that hearing, on page 2 paragraph 3 in the Respondent's Responce in this instant

matter.

cONuUSIoN The authority of the Courc comes from the Consticution and the Laws passed by the

(2 )

Legislature. Those documents define the role of the Court and the duties of the Judges that

serve there. It is the job of the Court ro conduct a trial and to make an honest attempt at a

fair and equitable judgement. Ic is the duty of the Judges of the Court to serve the Public and

to bring cases brought before them to conclusion. It is the duty of the Court to correct obvious

error when brought to the attention of the Court. It is the responsibility of the Court to ensure

as best it can that justice be served in a fair and equitable manner. Judges take an oath to

uphold the Constitution and are expected to abide by the Rule of Professional

' Condua.Therefore according to A.R.S. 1 2-409, I Alice Novoa-Bensoa request the Recusal of

all Cochise CountyJustices and Superior Court Judges, including visiting Judges that could use

rheir position to contaminate Case No. CV 201000977. Most if not all Justices and Judges in

Cochise County are associates and familiar with Respondent Alma Vidosola.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December,20 10

I swear or affirm that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge.

This 6th Day ofDecember, 2010

Alice Novoa-Iknson, Pro Per

49 16 Wesr Tumbleweed Lane

McNeal, Arizona 8561 7

Phone: 5 20) 266-2753

F ARTZONA, In an

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Plaintiff, December 08,2010

Case No. CV201000977

ORDER

VS .

ALMA VILDOSOLA, CHRISTME RHODES, KEN BENNETT and DON CROCETTI,

Contestant ALICE NOVOA-BENSON having filed a document entitled, "Affidavit of Request fsr

Recusation," dated December 06,20 10, which document may be considered a motion for change of judge for

cause, it is hereby ORDERED:

The Honorable JAMES A. SOTO, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Santa Cruz County, is

assigned to consider and rule upon said filing. In all other respects, the case shall remain assigned to Division 5

of this Court pending the ruling by Judge Soto.

DATED this O*day of December, 2010.

I r

HONORABLE WALLACE R. HOGGATT _ PRESIDING JUDGLOF THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY

mailed/distributed: xc: The Honorable James A. Soto

he Honorab : Novoa

,..,si. Riley, Esq., P.O. Box 1035, Bisbee, AZ 8560, :ounty Attorney (Hanson)

Attorney General-Elections Division, 1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007 Thelma Munoz, Court Administration

Page 1 of 1

Case No CV 201000977

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON Plaintiff, vs. ALMA VILDOSOLA, CHRISTINE RHODES, KEN BENNETT, and DON CROCETTI, Defendants

Affidavit of Request for Recusation: James L. Conlogue, or all Cochise County Justices and

Superior Court Judges, including visiting Judges

dated December 06,2010

As per telephone status conferance,held on December 09,2010 with the Honorable JAMES A SOTO,

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Santa Cruz County, assigned to consider and rule upon said

filing. ( Present at telephone status conference with were Contestant Alice Novoa-Benson, James L.Riley,

counsel for Contestee Alma Vildosola, Britt Hansen County Attorney for Cochise County .)The Honorable

James A. Soto also stated there would be a recorder to tape conversation. Mr. Riley stated Contestee Alma

Vidosola had not recieved ammended complaint, Contestant Novoa-Benson stated she did sent it. The

Honorable James A. Soto, told Contestant Novoa-Benson, to put all filed documents in a box and send it

to all parties involved. Contestant Novoa-Benson was also told to fax, "Affidavit of Request For

Recusation",one to James L. Riley Esq., another to Britt Hansen County Attorney, Cochise County.

Therefore fax numberswere exchanged between all parties.The Honorable James A. Soto made

arrangements to have a hearing on Tuesday, December 14,2010.

James L. Riley State Bar No. 004047 P.O. Box 1035 2 Bisbee, Arizona 85603

dl* Phone: 520432-7385 g:L E-Mail: jrilev520@msn.com

Attorney for Respondent ViMosoh U I U B I b IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

DMSION FIVE

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Petitioner,

VS.

ALMA VILDOSOLA, 1

Respondent. 1 1

Case No. CV 201 000977

RESPONSE TO VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEST

and MOTION TO DISMISS

and MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The Respondent, the Honorable ALMA VILDOSOLA, by and through

undersigned counsel, submits the following Response:

Once again the Petitioner, ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, has filed a challenge to the

qualifications of the Respondent, the Honorable ALMA VILDOSOLA, Justice of the

Peace, Precinct No. 2. This most recent challenge is a restatement of all of the

frivolous allegations that the Respondent has made in previous challenges. The

Respondent asks this Court to take judicial notice of the two previous cases initiated by

the Petitioner: CV200600834 and CV201000455. In both of those matters, Ms. Navoa-

Benson alleged that Judge Vildosola was not qualified to have been nominated and

later elected to her current position. Essentially, she alleged that Judge Vildmla had

falsified her residence and that the Judge's status as a naturalized citizen had been

illegally granted. Ms. Novoa-Benson also goes so far as to contend that the federal

government has failed to "institute denaturalization proceedings" and is therefore "failing

in its duties." (See Paragraph 40, Amended Verified Affidavit of Contest.) Every single

one of Ms. Novoa-Benson's allegations, as set forth in her initial filing and in the

"Amended Verified Affidavit of Contest," were raised in the previous challenges she

filed.

The first challenge filed by Ms, Novoa-Benson (CV200600834) was heard by a

Pima County Judge, the Honorable Michael Miller. After a hearing held on October 18,

2006, Judge Miller ruled that Ms. Novoa-Benson's challenge had not been timely filed

and that he therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Judge Miller's decision is

set forth in a signed Minute Entry Order dated Oct. 18,2006.

Ms. Novoa-Benson was obviously not satisfied with Judge Millets ruling and

simply refiled her original Petition, obviously in the hope that another hearing would be

scheduled to consider her frivolous allegations. The Presiding Judge, the Honorable

Thomas E. Collins, acting on behatf of Judge Miller, issued a Minute Entry Order, dated

December 14, 2006, in which he ordered, "that no further action will be taken in this

matter for the reason that a decision on Contestant's challenge to the Primary Election

was filed and no appeal was taken from the decision."

Four years later, Ms. Novoa-Benson again challenged the qualifications of

Judge ~ i~oso la- to be nominated. In her uncaptioned pro per petition, filed on June 2.

2010, Ms. Novoa-Benson restated all of the allegations that she had presented four

years before. That case, CV201000455, was eventually heard by the Honorable Donna

Beumler. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2010. At that hearing Ms.

Novoa-Benson was given a full and fair opportunity to present evidence in support of

her allegations. Most of what Ms. Novoa-Benson presented was argument unsupported

by any credible evidence. During the hearing, Ms. Novoa-Benson went so far as to

accuse members of Judge Vildosola's family of being murderers and drug dealers.

After a lengthy evidentiary hearing, Judge Beumler issued a four-page signed Minute

Entry containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Obviously aware of the

nature and history of the dispute between the parties, Judge Beumler wrote, "The Court

FINDS that the parties have an interest in having the merits of this matter decided

formally and in a fashion which resolves this on-going dispute." Judge Beumler

expressly found that the Plaintiff had totally failed to satisfy her burden of supporting her

allegations with the required clear and convincing evidence. Judge Vildosola's Motion

to Dismiss was granted and Ms. Novoa-Benson's request for an injunction was

dismissed with prejudice.

RES JUDICATA

Judge Miller's ruling in the 2006 election challenge was clearly based on

procedural and jurisdictional grounds. The ruling entered by Judge Beumler in

CV201000455 was a determination on the merits after a full evidentiary hearing. Ms.

Novoa-Benson was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present evidence which would

James L. Riley State Bar No. 004947 P.O. Box 1035 Bisbee, Arizona 85603 Phone: 520-432-7385 E-Mail: jrilev52O@msn.com

Attorney for Respondent ViMosola

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHlSE

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Petitioner,

VS.

Hon. ALMA VILDOSOLA, Respondent

Case No. CV 201 000977

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Notice is hereby given that James L. Riley, counsel undersigned, enters

his appearance for the Respondent, The Honorable ALMA VILDOSOLA.

Counsel undersigned is willing to accept service of all documents required by law

to be served on the Respondent, at the address indicated above.

Dated this 1st day of December, 2010.

support her many wild accusations. Judge Beumler's ruling was clearly based on the

merits. No appeal was filed by Ms. Novoa-Benson.

The parties to the election challenge heard by Judge Beumler were identical to

the parties in current challenge. The allegations and issues are exactly the same. Ms.

Novoa-Benson is clearly consumed by her c~sade to discredit Judge Vildosola. She

will obviously keep filing these challenges and making the same baseless accusations

until some judge sees it her way. The law will simply not permit this kind of nonsense.

There must be some finality to this dispute. Ms. Novoa-Benson has made the same

allegations, which she has failed to support with any evidence whatsoever, over and

over again. This Court must tell Ms. Novoa-Benson that enough is enough and deny

her current challenge based on principles of res judicata.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

In addition to a dismissal of this challenge, the Respondent requests that this

Court impose an appropriate sanction pursuant to Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Civil

Procedure. Respoiident and undersigned counsel understand that courts are reluctant

to impose such sanctions except in extreme cases. However, this is just such a ease.

Ms. Novoa-Benson has demonstrated that she cares very little for the requirements of

the law and will continue to pursue her vendetta against Judge Viidosola until she is

forced to stop. Ms. Novoa-Benson has made, and will continue to make, ludicrous and

unfounded accusations against Judge Vildosola which, if made outside of court

pleadings, would be actionable. Other than suffering adverse rulings in the previous

challenges, Ms. Novoa-Benson has suffered no other penalty which would deter her

from pursuing this mad course of conduct. All of these challenges have been initiated in

pro per, and for a simple reason. Ms. Novoa-Benson appears to have the resources to

retain an attorney to represent her in her efforts, except that no rational attorney would

be willing to risk his or her license to engage in such obviously baseless litigation. A

simple review of the history of the challenges initiated by Ms. Novoa-Benson indicates

how much trouble and expense she has caused to Judge Vildosola and the legal

system. The considerable cost to the legal system include the need for processing her

petitions, the expense of holding hearings which involve numerous court personnel,

including having to bring in a vising Judge from Pima County in 2006. The docket of

Judge Vildosola's court has been frequently disrupted because she must be away from

her court for the various hearings made necessary by these frivolous challenges.

Judge Vildosola has been fortunate that undersigned counsel has been willing to

represent her pro bono for all of these challenges simply because counsel believes it is

important to defend judges who are so baselessly accused.

If this were the first time that Ms. Novoa-Benson had filed such a challenge, it

would be understandable to simply enter an adverse ruling and warn her about this kind

of conduct. However this is not the first time she has done this. This is at least the third

time and it won't be the last. Unless it is made dear to Ms. Novoa-Benson that this kind

of frivolous litigation and personal attack will not be tolerated, she will continue to file

these challenges which have no merit.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Respondent requests:

1. That this Court deny thii challenge and find that it is barred

by principles of res judicata, and

2- Impose a sanction sufficiently substantial to deter Ms. Novoa-Benson from

similar litigation in the future.

Respectfully submitted thii 1 st day of December, 201 0.

Copy of the foregoing Response mailed this 1 st day of December 2010, to: Alice Nov~&~WISO~ 4916 West Tumbleweed Land McNeal, Arizona 8561 7 Petitioner

Alice Nooa-Benson, Pro Per

4916 West Tumbleweed Lane McNeal, Arizona 8561 7

Phone: 5 20) 266-27 5 3

FILED

IN THB SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CSHISE- --=.

DIVISION FIVE

Alice Novoa-Benson, 1 Contestant, )

1 )

)

A h Vildosola, J.P.2 Elect: et al, )

Contestees. 1

Case Number: CV 201000977

before the Honorable James L. Conlogue

CONTESTANT'S RESPONSE TO

C O ~ S T E E VILDOSOLA'S

RESPONSE TO VERIFIED

AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEST and

MOTION TO DISMISS

and

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1. This instant "Contestant's Response" will address the multi facered filing by

Contacee Alma ViMosola1s Counsel, James I. Riley, dated ~ecember 1,2010. For

limitation of words, that flling will be hereafter and herein cited as Vddosola's MtD.

2. It is dear that now, w i t h Vildosola's MtD, a t page 1, paragraph 2 , lines 3 and 4, Vildosola is in full- concurrence with the Contestant in this instant Election

Contest that Vildosola has in fact, in past challenges and is about to in this instant

challenge, made and will again make frivolous statements, through her Counsel, about

her citizenship status in the past and present.

3. It is apparent that after review of the Contestant's Amended Verified

(1)

Mfdavit of Contest, by Mr. Riley, (that review is verified by his citation of it within

Vildosola's MtD at page 2, paragraph 1, lines 6) hc is convinced that the newly discovered

Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 10 and the codified law which it commands to be

legislated which appears in the Arizona Revised Statutes as 38-201(A)(B) is proof positive

that Vildosola was , at the time of her filling out and filing of her application for a Certificate

of Naturalization, in fact, in violation of Arizona employment laws as related to "any office,

employment or service in any public institution in the state, or in any of the several counties

thereof, of any kind of character, weather by election, appointment or contract, unless he is a

citizen of the United States.".

4. This offering of fact as to the contents of the Arizona Constitution, Article 18,

Section 10 and A.R.S. 38-201(AXB) is now joined by 'exhibit 6" of the Contestant's Amended

Verified Affidavit of Contest for this instant action, here now by reference. Vildosola's

autographed statement that in the year 2000 she had a "degree in law, along with seven years

of working in the court of justice...". Seven years subtracted from the year 2000 will, in fact,

yield 1993.In the case, number CV 20100045 5 and in its file, which Mr. Riley has directed

chis Honorable Court's attention to within Vildosola's MtD at page 1, paragraph 2 ,line 6, is a photo copy of a certificate of naturalization dated September 24,1996 that has been sworn

to as being Vildosola's. These three facts and acts, taken together, are an admission of the

active 3 year long violation of, the laws of the State of Arizona by Vildosola and occurring at

che very same time during the required five year residency for her application for certificate of

naturalization.

5. U n t w to Mr. Riley's statemenr made within Vildosola's MtD ar page 2, paragraph

1, lines 6-9, here by reference, The foregoing allegation has never been raised by Contestant

at any time previously, as this Constitutional and A.R.S. law have just been discovered by

Contestant most recently.

6. As this instant matter has other Respondents, one being rhe Associate Ditecror,

(2)

off' of Fraud Detection and National Security, for the United States Citizenship a d

Immigration Services, rime should surely be given for him or his Counsel to respond to what

they read in the Contestants Amended Verified Affidavit of Contest.

7. All of the foregoing is relevant as the A.R.S. at 13-204(B) states " Ignorance or

mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibiliy" and the

A.R.S. at 13-107(B) states that prosecution for the type of crime described in 3 and 4 of this

instant Contestant's Response has a time limit which starts to run only "after the actual

discovery by the state or political subdivision having jurisdiction of the offence.".

8. Mr. Riley's statement contained within page 3 of Vildosola's MtD a t page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-5, is fundamentally untrue. The submission of an approximately one inch

thick binder of documents without the opportunity to explain their connection and the

submission of a writing (certificate of naturalization) by a party (Vildosola) with no regard for

Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded

Statements, which stares "When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced

by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or

any otber writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered

contemporaneously with it.", and when the writing which is presented as prima facia evidence

is only granted by an underlying documented process and procedure and those underlying

documents are avoided there can be no assurance of the validity of the surface document.

' 9. Number 8 of this instant Conrestant's Response is included as a result of Arizona

Rules of Evidence, Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Ermr may

nor be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of

the party is affected, and (d) Fundamental error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice

of errors affecting fundamental rights although they were nor brought ro the attention of rhe

u)urt.".

10. Contestant seeks only the truth and the whole truth, as to this point co dace only

part of the truth has been forthcoming and a full resolution to chis issue can only be reached

by examination of all related documencacion which is in the hands of one or more other of the

Respondents in this matter and it would not serve AzRCivP, Rule 1. Scope of rules, which

states, "Tl~ey shall be conscrued ro secure the b, speedy, and inexpensive determination of

every action.". It is Contestant's pose that justice should trump speed.

For reason of all of the forgoing, this Honorable Court, in the interest of true justice,

in a matter where a relevant crime is openly and publicly admitted and has bearing on the

evidence previously submitted which was relied upon now has a factual shadow of doubt cast

upon it can not in good faith dismiss this action and the process of fd disclosure. Therefore it

is this Contestant's request of this Honorable Court to DENY Respondent Vildosola's motion

to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December, 2010

I h- B- A h Novoa-Benson, Pro Per

Copy of che foregoing Response mailed

this 6th day of December, 2010, to:

James L. Riley,

Attorney for Respondent Vildosoh

P.O. Box 1035

Bisbee, Arizona 85603

Cochise County Arizona Page 1 of 1

Local Time:l0:58:54 AM (Sun)

Altematlvo Dispute Resolution Program

Cochlse County Justice Courts Civil Division

A patty may a final order or final bdarnenf entered in a civil case. This notice explains your rights and responsibilities to file an appeal from such an order or judgment The appeal procadwe is set fath in the Suoerior Cwrt Rules of Amellate Procedure- C i .

There are two separate stages to the appeal process. The first stage bagins in this court; the second stage takes place in the County Superior Court Remember, you must complete all steps at both stages, or you run the risk of having your appeal dismissed. This notica does not set forth all the rules that govern civil appeals. To read them entirety, you may review the Arizona Statutes and Civil Appellate Rules at the library or through the link above. It is recommended that you keep a copy of all your documents during the appeal.

(A) fh. Notka of Appeal. To appeal the judge's decision you must file a 'Notice of Appear with the trial court derk within burteen (14) calendar days from the date of the linal order or final judgment If you do not file a N& of Appeal within these fourteen (14) days, you bse the right to appeal. In your Notice of Appeal, be sure to specify the specific judgment or wder you are appeafi.

(B) Tha M. On or before the 14day deadline to appeal, you must also pay for a copy of the proceedings at the hearing. The copy may be a d i n g or a transcript The derk will explain w h i i type of twxmI is required. Payment must be in cash or other method explained by the clerk If you cannot afbd to pay for the record, ask the derk for information about a waiver or extension Cdefenal') to make payment later. If you fail to pay for the record or transcript, your appeal may be dismissed. Add i i a l oopies ofthe hearing may be obtained for an addiial charge. Also, within the l4day period you musta&signate the RlcorrP with the murt by fllhg a fofmd 'W of the items you want included in the record on appeal.

(C) Podng a ' s u ~ " and "cost" bond on appeal to ehy JwJgmmt You cannot be forced to post a bond in order to exercise your right to appeal. However, if the judgment you are appealing includes a sanction (monetary fine) or money judgment against you, the other party can putwe collection even though you have filed a timely notice of appeal. No bond is required to appeal an order granting an order of pmtedb or injunction against harassment In order to stop collection etlbr$ while your appeal is pending, you must post a y.I~ersedeas bond with the trial court The amount ofthe bond is the total amount ofthe judgment ordered by the court, indudlng attorney's fees and costs. If you do not post bond to gtav enforcement, then tha order to pal is still in force and must be complii with. Also, the rules qu i re you to post a bond (which covers the expnses for filing fees, witness fees, and other items) with tha trial court

(D) fh. wkbn Appeal momofandurn You will need the record for this next step -the 'Appellant's Mernmndum.' The Appellant's Memorandum is your written 'brier or explanation why the trial court ruling was legally wrong. Normally, your memorandum should refer to spedRc portions ofthe record ofthe trial or hearing to point out where there was emw by the couft. (That is why a party who appeals pays for a copy of the record.) The memorandum should be typed or printed on letter-sized wh i r paper, double spaced, and not ex& 15 pages in length, not counling any exhibits from your hearing w h i i you will want to attach to the memorandum.

(E) Flllng the Appdtmtt'8 Momamdurn WIUtln 60 day@. If you file an appeal, you are the 'appellant.' The appellant's memorandum must be filed with the court within dxty (60) calendar days of the deadline to file the notice of appeal. Put the caption of the case and your case number at the top of your memorandum. Print the Me 'Appellant's Memorandum' blow the caption so the court can identify it when it is filed. If you do not have an attomey doing your appeal, you must fde the original and one (1) additional copy of the memorandum for eech ather party with the cwrt The other side then has lhisty (30) days to fib an 'Appdh's Memorandum'.

(F) Walt for further lnstn~ctkm. Once the memorandum has been filed, you should await further instructions from the bumor Court as outlined in the next stage. To keep you informed. remember that the trial cwrt must have your current mailing address at all times. Even if you hire an attorney, your address is stlll required for legal notifications.

(G) C m 8 4 p p m k The rules regarding crossappeals are set forth in full detail in the Superior Court R u b of Appellate Procedure mentioned above and should be consulted directly.

(H) Paylng th. Superior Cwft flllng fee. If you have completad a l of the first stage, your case moves to Superior CouR About sbty (80) days after you file your memorandum, you will receive a notice from the Superior Court This notice wiU instnrct you to pay the Superior Court appeal filing fee. You must pay this filing fee or your appeal may be dismissed and your case sent back to tha bSal court Agam, if you cannot aibd b pay tha W i fee, contact the Superior Court Clerk for Wonnatbn about a possible waiver a extension Cdefenar) to make payment later. For more information, you may contact Superior Court at 520-432- 8591, or via the link above.

(I) Superh Cwrt action on tho 8ppnl. If you have now compkbd a l these steps, you will a ~ i i n g fmm the Superior Coun The Superkr Court has the right to affirm the trial court, overrule the trial court, modify some ofthe trtal court decision, or, If record is not clear, order a new trial in the Superb Court. If the final outcome of your case is that the ruling stands, or if your appeal is dismissed for any other reason, remember that the other side or the court may use any bond, depoeif or payments already made to satisfy your o b l i i and that you may have to return to the -1 court to be given other instructions in person.

(J) ~~ OfexRiMb upon md Judgmmt After a judgment has becoma final and mappealable, a person who files a request under penalty of pejury setting forth ownership of, or lawful entitlement to the possession of an exhibit may o h i n an ex perle order permitting its withdrawal. Ninety (90) days after a judgment has become final and non-appealable, the cwrt having pomesm thereof may dispose of exhibits in its possession.

CASE: ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Plaintiit

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF COCHISE

Date December 14,2010 2010DEC 14 P!! 1: 06

DE#ti .E I. t m a G~EFLX #F i#c,m cam1

vs. ALMA VILDOSOLA, Defendant

MINUTE ENTRY ACTION: HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S - A m OF ------ I __ REQUEST _ FOR RE-TUSATION - - - CASE No;-- --= --

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING

JUDGE HONORABLE JAMES k SOT0 (Visiting Judge from Santa Cruz County) D I ~ I O N Seven (a Division Five Case) C~URT REPORTER Penny Heins ADDRESS & PHONE

DENISE I. LUNDIN, Clerk of the Superior Colrrt

By Bonita L Cook (12/14/10) Deputy Clerk Docketed by

PRESENT: Plaintiff present in Pro Per Defendant present in person and by James L. Riley, Esq.

The above-entitled matter came before the Court at 10:30 a.m.

Judge Soto advised all parties as to the limited scope of today's proceedings and that is to consider

Plaintiff's affidavit.

Plaintiff ALICE NOVOA-BENSON and Defendant ALMA VILDOSOLA were duly sworn by the

Plaintiff advised she filed several pleadings last night.

Mr. Riley advised he has not received the documents nor has he received a copy of the affidavit.

The Court reminded Plaintiff that the only issue before the Court today is to decide whether Judge

James Conlogue should continue to be the assigned judge on this case.

Plaintiff presented argument in support of her Affidavit of Request for Recusation.

The Court inquired of Plaintiff if she served the affidavit on the appropriate parties.

Mr. Riley presented Defendant's argument in opposition.

COPY OF ORIGINAL

Pane Two Date: December 14,201 0 Case No. CV201000977 MINUTE ENTRY

Plaintiff presented argument in response.

The Court fixrther inquired of Plaintiff regarding her &davit.

Based on what the Court has heard today, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff has not followed the proper

procedure in terms of service of her affidavit. Beyond that, Plaintiff has the obligation and burden under Rule

420, the burden by a preponderance of the evidence, to show a bias or prejudice on the part of Judge Conlogue, - - - - -- - - +_ -- I?------- ---.-

and the Court FINDS that Plaintiff has not met that burden.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs Request for Change of Judge for cause and AFFIlUMING the

hearing set for Thursday [December 36,20101 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Conlogue, Division Five of this Court.

Proceedings concluded at 1 1 : 1 6 a.m.

xc: Alice Novoa-Benson, 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane, McNeal, AZ 8561 7 James L. Riley, Esq. Britt Hanson, Deputy County Attorney Attorney General - Election Division, 1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007 Honorable James A. Soto, Santa Cruz County, Court Administration - Thelma Munoz JAA9Div 5

Case No CV 21000977

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON CONTESTANT

vs.

ALMA VILDOSOLA, CHRISTINE RHODES, KEN BENNETT, AND DON CROCETTI, CONTESTEES

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED AT HEARING, set for December 14,2010, before the Honorable

James A. Soto, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Santa Cruz County,assigned to consider and rule

upon said filing, "Affidavit of Request for Recusation."

Exhibit I. Case No. CV200200670 Affidavit FILED 2002 DEC 03. Voter Fraud Pricinct 2. Judge

James L.Conlogue presided.

Exhibit 2. Case No. CV200600834, ALICE NOVOA-BENSON Contestant, vs. ALMA VILDOSOLA and

GEORGE A. HOKE Contestees, Notice of Hearing (327), Filed 2006 OCT I I. Letter from the Honorable

Stephen M. Desens. Hearing set for October 19,2006, at 9:00 A.M. in Division Three.See Exhibits 4. 5. & 6.

Exibit 3.Case CV 200600834 "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE' and Case No. 200600834 'ANSWER OF

CONTESTEES and MOTION TO DISMISS, TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS STATEMENT OF CONTEST

and page 2 paragraph 1 of ALLEGATIONS OF PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE STATEMENT, The

Contestant alleges that Alma Vildosola was not eligible at the time of the election becuase of residency and

citizenship requirements.Judge Vildosola, the current Magistrate for the City of Douglas, has resided at the

same address in Douglas for the past eight years 2901 13th Street. She became a naturalized citizen in

1996. This allegation is clearly false and frivolous. See Case No.CV 201 10000977 November 19.201 0

"ELECTION CHALLENGE (Amended) Verified Affidavit of Contest 1AzRCivP Rule 15(aMI )l Exhibit 1

~ildosola's 201 0 A.R.S. 16-31 1 "Nomination Paper". Exhibit 2. Vildosola's 2006 A.R.S. 16-31 1

(1)

"Nomination Paper". Exhibit 3 Vildosola's 2000 A.R.S. 16-31 1 "Nomination Paper". Exhibit 4 November 4th.

1998 corrective 'Warrantv Deed". Exhibit 5a & 5b. Januarv 8th 2001 Countv Assessor's"Pro~ertv Status

Inquiry"

Exhibit 4. Case No. CV 201000977 "AFFIDAVIT OF REQUEST FOR RECUSATION' FILED 2010 DEC-6

page 2, Reason I: Case No. CV 201000977, Novoa-Benson vs Vildosola, there is believed to be a

conflict of interest, being that the Honorable James Conlogue is an associate and familiar with James L.

Riley, Esq., the Honorable Donna Beumler and Denise I. Lundin. Clerk of the Superior Court whom is one of

Vildosola's areatest defenders-Reason 2 The Hearina of Contest of Election. Case No. 200600834

for the Primaw Election 2006'. Contestant had to show up on October 18.2006, one dav short

of the scheduled hearing which was set for October 19,2006. A clerk from the Honorable Wallace R.

H0gaatt.s ofice called Contestant at or about 9:00 A.M. and told Contestant . she had to show UD to court in

an hour. or Case No. CV 200600834 would be dismissed. The clerk said a iudae from out of town was there

for other cases and would do Contestant's case also. Contestant stated she was not readv. the clerk

warned Contesvant again, so the Contestant had to go,leaving the evidence behind. Contestant made an

oral Motion for Continuance before the Honorable Michael Miller and it was denied. Contestant aave a

letter. ' Continuance Request', this was also denied ... Therefore the Contestant went to the Su~erior Court

of Arizona Countv of Cochise after the General Election of 2006, to file a timelv Affidavit Of Contest.since

the Affidavit Of Contest for the Primarv Election Hearina which was held on October 18.2006 was

dismissed, the argument was that the Statement Of Contest was not filed on time. When the Contestant

was about to file. Denise I. Lundin Clerk of the Superior Court. came to the clerk window and told the

Contestant the Case was closed. The Contestant responded that this was a new Contest. Denise I. Lindun

refused to acce~t the new Affidavit of Contest.Ttherefore the new Affidavit of Contest for General Election of

2006 was never filed aaainst Vildosola. The Contestant Novoa-Benson was not made aware of the hearina

(2)

that took place on December 14.2006, before the Honorable Thomas E. Collins. until the Contestant

recieved in the mail, theW'NOTICE OF APPEARANCE for Case No. CV201000977 December 3.2010. It is

aDBarent that the Contestee Vildosola and her Counsel James L. Rilev knew about it. James Rilev Escl.

made reference of that hearina that took place on December 14,2006 on Case No.201000977 NOTICE

OF APPEARANCE.FILED 2010 DEC 1. ALICE NOVOA-BENSON Petitioner vs. Hon. ALMA

VILDOSOLA. Respondant. (on paae 2 ~araaraph 3, Ms. Novoa-Benson was obviouslv not satisfied with

Judae Miller's rulina and simplv refiled her oriainal Petition, obviouslv in the h o ~ e that another hearina

would be scheduled to consider her frivolous alleaations. The Presidina Judae, the Honorable Thomas

E. Collins, acting on behalf of Judae Miller. issued a Minute Entrv Order. dated December 14.2006,

in which he ordered. "that no further action will be taken in this matter for the reason that a decision on

Contestant's challenae to the Primarv Election was filed and no appeal was taken from the decision.")

Exhibit 5. Case No. CV 200600834 DATE: 18 October 2006, Alice Novoa-Benson vs. Alma Vildosola

andlor George A. Hoke. LETTER: "Continuance Request", violation of procedure of notification to appear,

presented by Contestant Novoa-Benson to the Honorable Michael Miller at the hearing held on October

18,2006, for Primary Election. The Honorable Michael Miller refused to accept letter and denid

Contestant oral argument on motion to continue. Therefore factual evidence was never presented.

Exhibit 6. Case No. CV200600834 Filed 06 OCT 18, RULING (3981921). The Motion To Dismiss is

granted and the election results concerning Alma Vildosola and George A. Hoke are confirmed.

Judge Michael Miller presided.

Exhibit 7. Case No. CV200600834 Filed 06 Oct 19, MINUTE ENTRY ACTION; (178) HEARING ON

CONTESTED ELECTION (926) ORDER DENYING page 2, THE RECORD MAY SHOW: The Court

determines that it does not have jurisdiction in this matter to hear the election contest.

Exhibit 8. The Sierra Vista Herald: News Rummers hound judge: Unfounded claims about her status

(3)

spread. By Jonathan Clark Published: Sunday, June 3,2007. (must Read entire article).

Exhibit 9. Wrong SUMMONS, SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNT. Case

CV201000977 Filed: November 05,2010 ,ALICE NOVOA-BENSON Contestant vs Alma Vildosola

Contestee was filed in County Cochise not Maricopa County.

Exhibit 10. MOTION FOR SACTIONS (Pursuant to ARCivP Rule 1 1 (a)) Case No. CV 201 000977

Filed: 2010 DEC 13 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ALMA VILDOSOLA, JAMES I. RILEY HAS

VIOLATED RULE 1 1 (a)

Exhibit 1 1. PROOF OF SERVICEICERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case No. CV201000977 Filed:

2010 DEC -9 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS,VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEST AND

AMENDED VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEST UPON RESPONDENTS ALMA VILDOSOLA JP2,

ELECT AND CHRISTINE RHODES, COCHISE COUNTY RECORDER

Exhibit 12. Office of the Sheriff Cochise County, FILED 2010 DEC -lRETURN AND AFFIDAVIT OF

SERVICE, SERVE: Alma Vildosola, CASE# CV201000977 CCSO# 10C-2620

To whom it may concern: C r l A ~ b ~ o o G 7 o Tuesday, December 33, 2002

The attached list of Registered ~oter!foP!&&$c&,~g)een submitted to your office, in the strong implication who have registered to vote are not U.S. Citizens( recent years 1999). Therefore, we request that your office this matter.

Exhibit "1" . . . . . . . ARIZONA VOTER REGISTRATION FORM

SOLInruD DE INSCRIPCI~N PARA VOTAR EN ARIZONA INSTRUCCIONES EN ESPaOL SE E3NCUBNTRAN AL REVERS0

(SPANISH INSTRUCTIONS ARE ON THE BACK OF THE REQISTRATION FORM)

Voter Declaration-states that by signing a person swears and af5rms that the following is true: 1A. ClTIZEN of the United States of America. 1B. RESIDENT of Arizona and the above named county 1C. Will be at last 18 YEARS OF AGE by the next general election 1D. Is NOT a convicted FELON, or civil rights are restored

Attached is a List of Registered Voters of Precinct #2 fiom 2000,2001, and 2002. Please investigate the complete County of Cochise (cities: Douglas, Pirtleville, Bisbee, Sierra Vista, etc.)

Exhibit "2" I

Exhibit "3"

DO Gadsden: not available, but needs to be investigated

DO Castro Park List of Registered Voters

Exhibit "4" DO Douglas List of Registered Voters

Exhibit "5" DO Carlson List of Registered Voters

Exhibit "6"

Exhibit "7"

Exhibit "9"

DO Sunnyside List of Registered Voters

DO Pan American List of Registered Voters

DO Calvary List of Registered Voters .

Pirtleville b t of Registered Voters

DIWSION THREE Judicial Administrative Assistant I

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF ARIUINA, In and for the County of Cochise

NOTICE is hereby given &at a hearrig sM1 be Mc? p m ~ m t to A.R.S. $1 5-6?6 on ~ ~ W I ) A Y ,

OCTOBER 19,2006, AT 9:00 A.M., in Division Three of this Court, 100 Quality Hill, Bisbee, Arizona 85603.

Contestant Alice Novoa-Beason shall promptly provide notice of this order to any other party or counsel who

enters an appearance herein, and shall file proof of having done so.

Dated this 1 1~ day of October, 2006.

W!!!HPY

2 0 6 6 O C T I l P M 2 ~ 5 3

DEMISE 1, LUHDIH CLEFT nr su~~sio i t tow -- a s * ? l i ; y

u

-w -"."&

I WALLACE R. HOGGATT JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

.)HONORABLE WALLACE R HOGGATT By: Glendalynn Cobb (1 011 1/06)

-c

mailed/distriiuted: /O ' / I - (3 b xc: &ce Novoa-Benson; 491 6 West Tumbleweed Lane; McNeal, AZ 85617

Page 1 of 1

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Contestant,

VS .

ALMA VILDOSOLA and GEORGE A. HOKE,

Contestees.

October 1 1,2006

~aseNo.CV200600834

IGOTICE OF HEARING (327)

James L. Riley State Bar No. 04947 P.O. Box 1035 Bisbee, Arizona 85603 Phone: 520-432-7385 E-Mail: jriIev520@msn.com

Attorney for Contestees Vildosola and Hoke

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Contestant,

VS.

ALMA VILDOSOLA, and GEORGE A. HOKE,

Contestees.

Case No. CV 200600834

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Notice is hereby given that James L. Riley, counsel undersigned, enters

his appearance for both of the above-referenced Contestees, A L W VILDOSOLA

and GEORGE A. HOKE. Counsel undersigned is willing to accept senrice of all

documents required by law to be senred on the Contestees, at the address

indicated above.

Dated this 1 6 ~ day of October, 2006.

James L. Riley State Bar No. 004947 P.O. Box 1035 Bisbee, Arizona 85603 Phone: 520432-7385 E-Mail: jrilev520@msn.com

Attorney for COryeptees Vildosola and Hoke

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Contestant,

vs.

ALMA VILDOSOLA, and GEORGE A. HOKE,

Contestees.

Case No. CV 200600834

ANSWER OF CONTESTEES

and

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Contestees, ALMA VILDOSOLA and GEORGE A. HOKE, answer the

Statement of Contest filed by ALICE NOVOA-BENSON as follows:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS STATEMENT OF CONTEST

This Statement of Contest was filed by the Contestant on October 10,

2006. The election at issue was held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006. The

election at issue was for the position of Justice of the Peace, Precinct No. 2, in

Douglas, Arizona. The Cochise County Board of Supervisors completed the

canvass of this election on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. Contestee Alma

Vildosola was declared the nominee of the Democratic Party, and Contestee

George A. Hoke was declared the nominee of the Republican Party. Contestant

Alice Novoa-Benson was a losing candidate for the Republican nomination.

A.R.S. Sec. 16-673(A) requires that a statement of contest must be filed "within

five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the

result thereof . . ." This fnre day requirement is to be strictly construed. Smith v.

Board of Directors, 148 Ariz. 598, 716 P.2d 55 (1985); Donaahev v. Attorney

General, 120 Ariz. 93 (1 978); Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 583 P.2d 906

(1978). Five days means five~lendar days. The only exception to this rule of

strict construction is when the fifth day falls on a weekend or holiday, then the

Statement of Contest must be filed on the next business day. Fisher v. &ache

Junction, 200 Ariz. 484 (App. 2001). Even if Rule 6(a) of the Civil Rules were

applicable in this matter, the filing of this Statement of Contest was well beyond

the deadline.

ALLEGATIONS OF PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE STATEMENT

The Contestant alleges that Alma Vildosola was not eligible at the time of

the election because of residency and citizenship requirements. JaQe

Viosola, the current Magistrate for the Cdy of Douglas, has resided at the same

address in Douglas for the past eight years, 2901 13' Street. She bsceme a

naturalized citizen in 1998. This allegation is clearly false and frivokus.

The Contestant also alleges that both Contestees are guilty of "illegal

votes." Notwithstanding the requirement of A.R.S. Sec. 16-673 (A) (4) that the

Contestant must set forth "The particular grounds of the contest," the Contestant

gives no particulars with regard to the "illegal votes." The Contestees have no

idea what the Contestant is referring to and obviowiy cannot be prepared to

address such an unsupported allegation.

The Contestant fina / y alleges that Judge Vildosola has a "connection with

Ronald J. Borane, former Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, Precinct No. 2."

Judge Vildorsola sewed in Judge Borane's court for three years as a Deputy

Clerk and four years as the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Justice Court. This

allegation is clearly irrelevant to any election contest.

Because this Statement of Contest was not timely filed it should be

summarily dismissed. In addition, the Contestant has made an irrelevant

allegation and has failed to state any particulars with regard to the alleged "illegal

votes." For all these reasons, this contest should be dismissed.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Contestees requests:

1. That this contest be dismissed.

2. That the Court order the Contestant to pay the answer fees which

were deferred by Judge Hoggatt.

Respectfully submitted this 16" day of October, 2006.

Copy of the foregoing Answer and Motion to Dismiss miled this 16'h Day of ocbbef, 2006 to: Alice Nowragenson 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane McNeel, Arizona 8561 7

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF ARIZONA, In and for the County of Cochise ,

HONORABLE MICHAEL MILLER By: Lynne Booth (1 01 1 8106) Judicial Administrative Assistant

ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, contestant,

/ VS.

ALMA VILDOSOLA and GEORGE A. HOKE,

Contestees.

- - - -- -

The Court having considered the challenge by Contestant Alice Novoa-Benson to the primary election

for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, oral argument by the parties, and the evidence admitted in the contested

<

October 18,2006

Case NO. CV200600834

RULING (398/92 1)

election hearing

Ff"t"$_"B 06 OCT 1 8 ( 1 : 5 7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED confirming the primary election of Alma Vildosola as Democrat candidate

for Justice of the Peace and George A. Hoke as Republican candidate for Justice of the Peace.

The right to contest an election arises out of statute and must be conducted under the relevant statutory - provisions. Fish v. Redeker, 2 Ariz. App. 602,605,411 P.2d 40 (1966). A contest arising out of a primary

election is determined in the same manner as the contest of a general election. A.R.S. 51 6-671. An elector

challenging the results of a state election must file a statement of contest within five days after comp1etion of the

canvas of the election and declaration of the result. A.R.S. $16473. The statement must include iden-g

information, as well as the particular grounds of the contest. A.R.S. (j 16-672(A) sets out the grounds to

challenge an election.

Novoa-Benson was a Republican candidate in the September 12,2006 primary election for Justice of the

Peace. She meets the qualifications to challenge the primary election results. Contestees Vildosola and Hoke

were declared nominees for the office of Justice of the Peace, which g e n d election will occur on November 7,

-2006.

Contestees challenge the statement of contest as untimely filed. They also defend on the basis that there

-we no grounds to contest the election.

Page l d 3

COURT ORDERIRUILNG Date: October 18.2006 Case No.CV200600834

Was the Statement of Contest Timelv Filed? \

The time requirements for filing an election contest are strictly construed. Bedard v. Gonzales, 120

Ariz. 19,20,583 P.2d 906 (1978). An untimely statement of contest strips the Superior Court of jurisdiction

except as necessary to determine when the canvas of the election was completed and the results declared by the

Board of Supervisors. Hunsaker v. Deal, 135 Ark. 616,618,663 P.2d 608 (App. 1983). The burden of proof is

on the Contestant to show that the Court has jurisdiction to proceed. Barrera v. Superior Cowt, in and for

Graham County, 117 Ariz. 528,529,573 P.2d 928 (App. 1977).

The. Cochise County Board of Supervisors completed the canvas of the election and declared Contestees

the primary winners on September 19,2006. The deadline for filing the statement of contest was Sunday,

September 24,2006. Because the deadline fell on a weekend, Novoa-Benson was permitted to file her

statement of contest on the next business day. Fisher v. City ofApache Junction, 200 Ariz. 484,113,28 P.3d

946 (App. 2001).

.- Contestant relies on Schahrer v. Bell, 34 Ariz. 334,336,271 Pac. 715 (1928) for the proposition that she

had twenty days to file a statement of contest. Additionally, she relies upon her understanding of the comments

made by the Cochise County Election Officer, Thomas Schelling. Mr. Schelling's testimony established the

five day requirement. Moreover, any references to the twenty day deadline discussed in Schahrer v. Bell were

for historical purposes only. This is an accurate reading of Schahrer v. Bell because the relevant statute has

changed since 1 928.

The statement of contest was filed on October 10,2006. It was filed fifteen days after the deadline to

contest the primary election. The statement of contest was not timely. This Court does not have jurisdiction to

hear the contested grounds.

- For the foregoing reasons, the Motion To Dismiss is grcrnted and the election results conamkg Alma

Vildosola and George A. Hoke are confirmed.

'-J

Page 2 of 3

COURT ORDER/RULTNG Date: October 18,2006 Case No.CV200600834

DATED this /day of < ,2006.

MICHAEL MILLER' JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

mailed/distributed: 10 - 3 0 @v xc: Hon. Michael Miller

&e Novoa-Benson; 49 16 West Tumbleweed Lane; McNeal, AZ 8561 7 James L. Riley, Esq.; P. 0. Box 1035; Bisbee, AZ 85603

Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Michael Miller, Pima County Superior Court, was appointed to hear this election contest by Presiding Judge Thomas E. Cob in place of the Honorable Wallace Hoggatt. See Order and Notice of Hearing filed October 16,2006.

DATE: 18 October 2006

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Cochise:

Alice Novoa-Benson

vs.

Alma Vildosola and/or George A. Hoke

Continuance Request

I, Alice Novoa-Benson, Candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, ask for a continuance for Case # CV200600834.

I, Alice Novoa-Benson, believe the reason being a violation of procedure of notification to appear.

. xPQ

Alice Novoa-Benson 0

COPY OF ORIGINAL SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

COUNTY OF COCBlSE

w II A ~ A P P T I E I A D Q I I Bwmxr I I IIlYDBlM I I Y - 1ogao-oc.8V CASE> ALICE NOVOA-BENSON, Contestant, vs. ALMA VILDOSOLA & GE Contwtees.

MINUTE ENTRY ACTION: G ON CON'I'IBTED ELECl'IoN [ b28 t l ! ik&W~m~ Case No. CV-0834

-E HO MICHAEL MILLER D m m & COURT = R ~ R Amy Blamer AaDRESs dt PHONE

DENISE L LUM;)IN, CLERK BY Heidi A. Tanner, 10/19/@6, Deputy MMby --

m: CwBrbmmt, Aliee Npvoa-Bmsm p e a t h Pro Per Contatties present m person .ad y James L. Meg, Esq.

The following proceedings took place in Open Court at 10: 1 1 am.

Ms. Novoa-Benson made an oral Motion for a Continuance of this hearing and presented argument in

support thereof.

The Court made inquiry of the Contestant with regard to the issue of the timeliness of the f ihg of this V

matter.

Mr. Riley presented argument with regard to the issue of timeliness.

At 10:25 a.m., the Court called a recess to allow the Contestant the opportunity to review the applicable

Statute.

This matter reconvened at 10:46 a.m. with the presence of the parties and counsel of word.

Upon inquiry from the Court, the Contestant stated that she had an opportunity to review the Smte.

THE RECORD MAY SHOW: The Court will now hear testimony on the factual dispute.

Mr. Riley called as a witness, THOMAS SCHELLING, who was duly sworn, examined, cross-

examined, questioned by the Court, re-direct examined, further cross-examined , fhther questioned by the Court

md excused fiom the s a d . L

Mr. Riley presented argument.

Ms. Novoa-Benson presented argument.

At 1 1 : 15 a.m., the Court called a recess to review the case law.

* * *

Court reconvened at 11:40 a.m., with the presence of the parties and cowsel of record.

- Paee Two October 18.2006 Case #CV200600834

MINUTE ENTRY ORDER - L The Court addressed the parties.

With respect to the Contestant's Motion to Continue this hearing;

IT IS ORDERED: The Motion to Continue is DENIED.

THE RECORD MAY SHOW: The Court determines that it does not have jurisdiction in this matter

to hear the election contest.

IT IS ORDERED: The Motion to Dismiss this action is GRANTED and CONFIRMCNG the primary

election results as Alma Vildasola as the democratic candidate and George Hoke as the republican candidate for

the Justice of the Peace #2 in the general election.

THE RECORD MAY SHOW: The Court read for the record the formal, written Decision of the Court

and the same shall be filed by the Clerk this date.

Mr. Riley requested that the Contestant be Ordered to pay costs and presented argument in support

thereof. Mr. Riley fbther requested that the Court Order sanctions against the Contestant.

* - Ms. Novoa-Benson presented argument in response thereto.

$<L " , _ I

I _ - , - IT IS ORDERED: The Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. - -2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERZD: The Court conhns the Order Deferring Filing Fees entered by Judge

Hoggatt and the filing fkes that the Contestees would otherwise have had to pay are waived.

xc:

.'d

m s . Alice Novoa-Bemon, 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane, McNeal AZ 85617 d i e s L. Riley, Esq. A o n . Michael Miller, Pima County Juvenile Court 2225 E Ajo Way Tucson, AZ 85713-6295

IN fi- ;-II, COUT OJJHF STATE OF ARIZONA

v. A h Viklosoh, JR 2, c k ,

Christine Wes, Cochise County

Registrar, Ken Benntcr, Arizona

Secretary of Scare, a d Don

Gocecu, USCIS Asst. Dit. ,Office of Fraud Detection a d National

Sccuricy, dl in offkid copcities,

Gntes r m . (pursuant to A.B,S. 1 M 7 2 & 16674)

WARNING: Tbis b an officiar h e a r f m rhc court rhar affers your rights.

Read artfully. If you do not udersrand it, concacr a lawyer for help.

To the above m e d Concesree; You are hereby mtif~d that Alice Nbvm-kpson a resident of Cocfiise Gounty, &ate of

Arizona, h on this day filtd in rhis cow a statement of conrest wherein he conresrs your ekrion

to rhc office d jusrice of the Peace, Precinct 2 at the eleceion held on the 2nd day of Nomnber,

2010 , a copy of which statement rccompaies this summons.

You are therefore required to fde gour answer to said stntcment with the clerk of this court

within five days dcer rhe K& of chis sumnons upon you cxdusivc of the day of st& or the

coutt will proceed wicb the hearing of such contcs t ex parre.

I of Superior Colur of Arizom, County of Cochk, this

2 -

Denise Lundin, Clerk of M i o r Court

Alice Novoa-Benson, Pro Per 4916 West Tumbleweed Lane McNeal, Arizona 85617 Phone: 520) 266-2753

IN THE SUPERIOR C O U n OF THE STATE OF ARiZOHA

I W AH0 FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

Alice Novoa Benson, An Qualified Elector of the County of Cochise, State of Arizona,

Contestant,

Alma Vildosola, Justice of the Peace, Elect;

Christine Rhodes, in her official copacity as Chochise Counly Recorder/Regisrar;

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ken Bennett, 1 Arizona Secretay of state, 1 in his official capacity as Chief Elections ) Officer of the State of Arizona; 1

1 1 (1)

Don Cracetti,

Case No. CV 201000977

Election Challenge (Amended

V d e d Affidavit of Contest [ AzElCivP Rule 1 5(aXl)])

in his official copacity as 1 Associate Director, m c e of Fraud ) Detection a3ld National Security, )

1 CQflmkes. )

AMENDED VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEST

GROUNTl1: A.R.S. 16472 (A)(2); That the person whose right to the office is mtested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office: (3) That the person whose right is contested.. . . . . . . has committed any offense against the elective franchise

THE FACTS ; The following statements of fact are made under AZRCivP Rule 1 (specifically; "They shd be construed to secure the just, ..... d e t d a t i o n of every action.), Rule 401 and 402 (qecZcdly; All relevant evidence is admissible).

1. Contesta, Alma Vildosola (hereafter Vildosola) has filed an required State of himm "Nomination Paper" (copy hereto attached as "exhibit 1 ") which was accepted and received on May 21,2010, numbered 2009-C06, for the 2010 State of Arizona primary and general election cycle.

2.Contaim.d in paragraph 2, hes 3-5 of that legal document ("exhibit 1 "), Vildosola did make the sworn (or affirmed) statements before a Notary that she had "resided in Cachise County for 49 years and in precinct number 2 for 49 years before my election.".

3. Vildosola had med an required State of Arizona "Nomination Paper" (copy

hereto attached as "exhibit 2") which was accepted end received on June 12,2006, numbered 2006-CS, for the 2006 State of Arizona primary and g a d election cycle.

4. Contained in paragraph 2, lines 364 of that legal document ("exhibit 29, Vildosola did make the sworn (or affirmed) s t a t m a t s before a Notary that she had, "resided in Cochise County for 40 years and in precinct No.2 for 40 yearsbefore my election."

5 . The year 2010, as expressed within "exhibit 1 " being mathematically only 4 years post the year 2006 as expressed within "exhibit 2", VildosoIa has expressed a 9 year difference in time of residence in Cochise County and in precinct No. 2 and swom (or -4) the same.

6. Vildosola had filed an required State of Arimna "Nomination Paper'' (hereto attached as "exhibit 3 9 , which was accepted and received on June 12,2000, numbered 2000-20C, for the 2000 State of Arizona primary and g e n d election cycle.

7. Contained in paragraph 2, lines 3&4 of that legal document cexhibit 39, Vildosola did make the swom (or affirmed) statements before a Notary that she had, "resided in Cochise County far 35 years and in precinct "Do Cadson" for 4 years before my election."

8. The year 20 10, as expressed witbin "exhibit 1 " being mathematically only 10 years post the year 2000 as expressed within "exbibit 3", Vildosola has expressed a swom (or affirmed) 14 year difference in time of residence in Cochise county.

9. Therein, Vildosola has, in not less than one of the 6 swom statements

(paragraphs 2,4 and 7 here by reference) executed a h u d by false sworn statement of material fhct as to time of residence.

10. A corrected "Warranty Deed", recorded on November 4th, 1998 (a copy hereto attached as "exhibit 4") for the conveyance of proper@ from , Ronald Borane and Rona E. Borane, husband and wife and Kirk Edmondson, a single man, to Alma Vildosola, a married woman as her sole and separate property, reflects at the top left of

(3)

that document that Vildosola used the address of 91 5 8th. Street, Douglas, Arizona 85607, which in the year 2000 was situated within precinct "Do Gadson".

1 1. A " P r o m Status Inquiry" (a copy bereto attached as "exhibits 5a & 5b), nm on Jmwy 8th., 2001 at the Cochise County Assessofs office, for Vildosola's 2901 13th. Street address appearing within her 2000 "Nomination Paper" ("exhibit 3") produced the following infomation. At "sales and transfern is listed, " inst type' Warranty Deed and "date of sale" 1 1 04 98, corroborating paragraph 10. Also revealed at "mnstyr" is 1999.

12.2901 13th Street is consistent with the precinct "Do Carlson", the four 4 years stated residency is inconsistent with the 1998 use of the 91 5 8th street, situated in precinct "Do Gadson (paragraphs 7,lO and 1 1 of this instaut affidavit of contest here by reference).

13. Vildosolats 2006 "Nomination Paper" ("exhibit 2") at w h 2, line 2, Vildosola swears (or affirms) that she had been, "a citizen of Arizona for 40 years". Vildosola's 20 10 "Nomination Papert' ("exhibit 1 " ), at paragraph 2, line 2, VildosoIa swears (or af&ms) that she had been "a citizn of h n a for 14 years". Tbis is a mathematical difference of 26 years as related to Vildosola's stated Arizona citizenship while the time between when the statements were made is 4 years.

14. The United States Constitution clearly states the following at Amendment XIV, Section 1; "AU persons born or noturnl id in the United States, and subject to

the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the stote wherein they reside.". Vildosula states tbat she was naturalized on September 24,1969 and became on that day a citizen of the United States. Only upon natudktion could Vildosola become a citizen of the state in which she resided.

IS. In 2000, Vildosola published a brachure for distribution by her campaign which displays her signature, thereby personally approving and indorsing the

(4)

information contained therein(c0py hereto attached as "exhibit 6", 2 sided).

16. Within "exhibit 6", Vildosola states that she attended school, grade 1-8 from 1964- 1972 in Douglas, Arizona and High School, grade 9- 12 from 1972- 1976, also in Douglas, Arizona.

17. Vildoola attended schoot in Douglas, Arhm by fraudulent means from 1964 thxough 1976 while not holding either legal residency status or legal United States citizen@.

18. Within "exhibit 6" Vildosola states she spent from 1976 through 1983 attending Universidad Autonoma & Guadalajara in Guadalajara, Jal, Mexico where she d v e d a degree in law and a Masters Degree in Corporate Law.

19. Between 1983 and 1989, Vildosola got m e e d , spent 6 months in H e m d o , Mexico, and then opened and operated 2 businesses in Agua Pieta, Mexico.

20. From 1989 through 1993, Vildosola was employed by the Mexican Government, in a supervisory position at Conasup.

2 1. Within "exhibit 6" Vildosola states that in 1 993 she kgau working 40 hours a week as a temporary Deputy Clerk. This was in Justice of the Peace, Ronald "Joe" Borne's Justice Court.

22. In 1994 Vildosola kmne a full time Deputy Clerk in Justice Court.

23. In 1995 Vildosola became Chef Clerk and maintained that position through 2000, supervising 6 Deputy Claks, in Justice Court. Vildosola is now the incumbent Justice of the Peace in that very Court and is the Justice of the PeaceEIect of this instant contested eldon.

(5)

24. Vildosola has presented a 73% sized photo copy of a Certificate of Naturalization as evidene in an election challenge in June of 2010 which was dated September 24th, 1 996.

2 5. The h n a Constitution states, at Article 1 8, Section 10. "No person not a citizen or ward of the United States shall be employed upon or in connection with any state, county or municipal works or employment; ... ..The legislature &all enact laws for the enforcement and shall provide for the punishment of any violation of this section." (copy hereto attached as "exhibit 7'3.

26. In 1996 the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( h e r e a h INS) of the United States had a process and proahre in place for the legal na~uraIization of immigrants (copy of 2 page INS form 1-1 30 insnctions hereto attached as "exbibit 8a & 8b).

27. At no time between her birth in Agua Prieta, Mexico and 1996, has Vildosola met any of the INS defined as eligible candidate ~Iassificatiofls for legal immigration to

the United States.

28. Vildosola has stated that she has been living within the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1966 ("exhibit 2" at paragraph 2, b e 2, here by reference) and it took until 1996 to become Natmhed.

29. There has never been a 32 year process time from the fling of an application for legal permanent residency to the issuance of a ceMcate of n a t d b t i o n . Vildosoia's CertEcate of Naturalization is a product of project "Citizenship USAt'.

3 0. Page 2, of this instant Election Challenge at "THE FACTSt' line 3, here now by reference.

3 1. Rosemary Jenks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies,

(6)

presented her "Testimony prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims" April 30th, 1997. Her testimony exposed the severity of the problems created by the "radical redesign" of Naturalidon, and Commissioner Doris Meismer's implementation of the "Citizenship USA" (hereafter CUSA) initiative in August of 1995 (copy of Rosemary Jenks' testimony hereto attached as "&bit 9a-W', 6 pages).

32. Within "exhibit 9b" at paragraph 6, it is revealed that in in Jmuaty, 1996, under CUSA the INS implemented a "Direct Mail" initiative wherein N-400~ (Application for Nahdization) were mailed directly to one of 4 INS W c e Centers instead of being submitted to District Offices. At paragraph 7 of "exhibit 9b" it is stated, "The implementation of the Direct hiail initiative resulted in almost immediate chaos. " .

33. Within "exhibit 9c" at paragraph 4, it is revealed "that the problems were severe" and that of the 1,049,872 persons granted U. S. citizenship under CUSA, 24.1 6% were individuals that should not have been approved. At paragraph 5 it is revealed that the previous figures do not reflect the number of applicants which lied on their applicutims, which would make them ineligible also.

34. Within "exhibit 9d" at paragraph 1, it is revealed "A number of INS employees testIfied, under oath, last fall (MI of 1996) that adjudicato~s feel pressured by their supemisors to "approve, approve, approve; " that good moral standards are being ignored;" and "that they are not IRS agents and so shouldn't concern themselves with possible tax fraud," (page 5, paragraph 20, here by reference).

35. Also within "exhibit 9d" at paragraph 2, it is revealed that volunteers, some of them legal -anent residents, performed duties including mailing Nahrabtion certificates and distributing Naturalization Cacates at citizenship ceremonies.

36. No c ~ t y can be had of legal United States citizenship by merely being

17)

presented a C d c a t e of Nabdimtion without contempomeoudy reviewing the underlying docmentation that supports the legal process and procedure required for its issuance.

37. An Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-31 1) wkich is r a p x e d under state law of Arizona, serves one purpose, that is to establish the qualifications of a person to hold the office which they seek. Therefore, every answer provided is, in fact, a material fact. Wherein an answer is provided that is not a fact, that answer sets forth the disqualification of the person supplying the answer as a matter of bud by false swm statement of material fact. Vildosola , by the statements provided within "exhibits 12 and 3" has executed such a f rd , which gws to moral turpitude.

38. Vildosola's holding of employment within the Justice Court system within the state of Arizona, from 1993 through 1996, in violation of the Arizona Constitution ("exhibit 7") and within the 5 year residency requjrmt would constitute grounds for disapproval of her MOO by the United States Citizenship and N a h m b t ~

. . on Services.

39. "me made mistakes in Citizenship USA [,I [we have corrected those mistakes and put in place a series of new measures to prevent them in the future." The preceding is a statement of INS Commissioner Doris Meimer before the House Judiciary Committee Immigration and Claims Subcommittee and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on National Semrity, International Affairs and Criminal Justice, @ p.12, March 5,1997.", and "9. Testimony of INS Commissioner Meissner, supra, at pp. 1 1 - 1 2, March 5,1997; letter fiom Commissiuner Meissner to Sen. John Kyl, November 1 5,1996, p .3 ("Any instance of improper naturalization is of concern to us. If it is determined that improper -on has occurmi, we will move quickly to institute denahdimion prwdings.")". From "House Policy Cumsnittee, Policy Pmptxtive, Christopher Cox, Chairman "Damage From 'Citizenship USA' P S I Can Never Be Undone" at , http://www.justi~edm~SCompti~n~O 1 .htm , (hapto attached as "exhibit 1 7a - 1 7 en, 5 pages, quotes at page 2 and 5 respectively).

(81

40. As of the date of the filing ofthis instant election challenge, the United States C i t i d p and Immigration Services (herafter, USCIS) has failed to "move quickly to institute -on proceedings" in the matter of Vildosola, and are therefore failing in its duties, as s h t d by Commissions Meissner (page 8, paragraph 39, lines 6 through 14, here by reference).

4 1. In light of all of the foregoing, it can be concIuded that the issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization to Vildosola by USCIS, within the climate of the time, has made USCIS criminally liabilt for Vildosola's huds under Arizona law as of September 24,1996.

GROUND 2 $4: A.R.S. 16-672 (AX11 For misconduct . . .. . on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election: (4) On amunt of illegal votes.

THE FACTS; Page 2, at 'me Facts" here in toto, by reference.

42. On May 14th. through May 16th., 20 1 0, a "Partisan Nomination Petition" (A.R.S. 16-315, hereto aUached as "exhibit 1 l", 2 sided) was circulated by an individual for the purpose of A.RS. 16-3 14 @eret~ attached as "exhibit 10'). The individual which circulated "exhibit 1 1 " also signed that document, at line 13, as a qualified elector (A.R.S. 16-12 1 QmMed elector; defirution). A review of the voter regiseation rolls, page 335 and 336 of 598 pages (hereto attached as "exhibits 12 and 13" respeatively), which include the names alphabetically from "Ca" through "Ci" does not present the circulators m e which begins "Ch" .

43. The AR.S. 16-3 1 5 ("exhibit 10") first sentence (excluding tbe title) states as Mows, "I, the unwgned, a qualified e l m of the county.. . . ." and is explicitly relating to present tense and, not at some time in the future.

44. On September 12 ., 2000, a "Partisan Nomination Petition" ( hereto

(9)

attached as "exhibit 14", 2 sided) was circulated by an individual for the purpose of A.R.S. 16-3 14 @ereto attached as "exbibit 1 5", 2 sided). The individual which circulated "exhibit 14" also signed that document, at line 10, as a quahfied elector. A review of the voter list, page 410, dated 1 1 /18/2000 states his effective registration date as 2000/08/14,4 months and 20-t d a y s later.

45. In the year 2000, b e e n Apnl18th aad June 6th, a "Partisan Nomination Petition" ( hae after PNP and hereto attached as "exhibit 18", mmmd

. . . image) was

circulated by an individual for the purpose of A.R.S. 16-3 14 @meto attached as "exhibit 19", minijnized image). The individual which circulated "exhibit 14" also signed that document, at line 1, as a quaMed elector.

46. Attention is directed to signature lines 5 and 6 of the PNP described in paragraph 45 above (here by reference). And also attention is direded to the "signature Roster for General Election on 1 1/07/200 (hereto attached as "exhibit 20" ). Lines 9 and 10 of that document present the names of a husband and wife, respectively. The same couples in lines 5 and 6 of the PNP, it is presented, have cast early ballots.

47. The husbaud and alleged signer of line 6, cited in pmgraph 46, is one Mario Reyes, Vildmlaf s cousin.

48. Mario Reyes was sentenced to federal prison on Monday, Apnl 1 7th, 2000 in New York. (article by Frank Eltman at "The Independent", hereto attached as "exhibit 21). He did not return to Douglas W a a on April 17th 18th or Nth, yet the date of the signing the PNP in paragraph 45 (here by reference) is Apnl19th, 2000.

49. As stated on the Cochise County Recorder website, it is the duty of the County Rec0fderIRegistra-r to verify petition signatures ( hereto attached as "exhibit 229, in this instant election challenge, that duty falls on contestee Christine Rhodes, County Recorder for the County of Cochise @ereafter, Rhodes).

5O.The Arizona Constitution states, at Article 7, k e n 7, 'In all elmtiom held

by the people in this state, the prson, or persons, receiving the highest number of legal

votes shall be declared elected.". A vote cast for an ineligible person is not a legal vote. *

5 1. The Secretary of State is the Chief &ions Officer, a d the ultimate

responsibility for the outcome of elections rest on his shoulders.

By the affixing of Contestant's signature to this AMENDED VERIFIED

AFFIDAVIT OF C O m , Contestant is of the belief that all allegations , assertions

a d statements contained herein are true and f a c d to the best of Contarant's

knowledge.

Alice Novoa-Benson, Pro Per

An Qualified Elector of Cochise County,

Reckt Uo. 2, State of Arizona

4916 West Tumbleweed h n e

McNd,Arimna 85617

Phone: 5 20) 266-2753

Subscribed and sworn ro ( a f f x d ) before m: , . . . . . . , , , , , , . . ' I

' I .

-4. f . . ... - I -

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARUONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHtSE

COVER of, and LIST of EXHIBITS

Case No. CV 201000977 Election Challenge

1. Vildosola's 20 10 A.R,S. 16-3 1 1 "Nomination Paper", 2. Vildosula's 2006 A.R S. 1 6 3 1 1 "Nomination Paper". 3. Vildosola's 2000 A.R.S. 16-31 1 'NNomination Paper". 4. November 4th 1998 corrective "Warranty Bed" 5a & 5b. January Bth, 2001 County Assessds "Properly Status Inquiry 6 . Vildosola's 2000 campaign brochure (2 sided) 7. Arizona Constitution, Article 1 8, Section 10 8a & 8b. Petition for Alien Relative, Insbuctions 9a through 9f. Rosemary Jenks' Aprrl30,1997 Tetomony for House of Rep. 10.2010 Partisan Nomination Petition circulator's instructions and signature 11.2010 Partisan Nomination Petition (2 sided) 12. Douglas voter list page 335/598 1 3. Douglas voter list page 3361598 14.2000 Partisan Nom Won Petition IS. 2000 Partism Nomination Petition circdatds instructions and signature 16.2000 voter list, page 410 1 7a through 1 7e. Article from Congressional Report, Policy Perspective 511 2/97 18..2000 Partisan Numination Petitim #24 19.2000 Partisan Nomidm Pdtion #24 circuiatois insbructims and signature

20. signature roster for general election on 11/07/2000 2 1. Article from The Independent, 18 Apnl2000 "Three jailed .. ." 22. Cmhise County recorders website statement of duties

Y ~ ~ h n e ~ ~ ~ I , l k ~ a ~ e ? L c ) m , ~ a ~ ~ the dm ab Ju5- d k p - ?b Z acth of tbe P- ~ , a t t b e ~ E b c t l o D b o b e h e M o n

e n d a t t h e Q e a e r c l l ~ l m b e ~ ~

Ibenrrm;n*tnul.

I d a n e l r a a . ~ o r r a . ~ s b b * * ,--my

okaionanddlhrscbmadthndArbDlubm tq yeamapcdngwelLctiramd

r i n - e t t a c ~ ~ b r t h a o m c . I r o L m d h . r r r a i d r d i m --84,

*3!E3-=d~Fd=t 1 i b r w Y I , ~ , m(p-

p a - -

'exhibit 4"

2:. cp )<

.-3 - '

=- casvcpp. Mu- STAT S fNRUXRY PRoPER$A~: T 8 ---- A D D R E S S - - - - --------------- L A N D ----------.,-- ------ ---- -----

.. . .

D ~ L ~ G U S -- - . RZ 85608 .. . - . . - --

965 X@X FCV . XKEFO~EEA- 7 SC ... A2

CUR . . A T A ----:------- -----

~. . . - . P ' R . . . . .CLKSS I T ~ S

. - . TOTAL : --- " .P ;ETSNfT$ L.

DCBDt T R I CuJ1y;-- :ODE . ..

. . " ------------------

. - -

A .-----------------------------------------

.-------I---------- 294 . ---- ------

:rr END OF PIC RECORD aar

*?..\. t ic;

EDUCATION

m:. ,

w-b~-~oanph( iaa

- 7

h e of charge.

10. M n 1 . N o p e r s o n n o t a m w w a r d o f t h e U n W S m s h a U b e e upon or In mnn=, minty or rmn*lpl works or wmnr p r o v m a t nothmng herein shall be consbud to theworkln o f ~ b y t h e s t a k e o r b y a awntyor a workoroker plbllc- and that the -%its of Ulls

the empkyment of any teacher, instruaor, or under E k teacher exchange pmgtarn as p l ~ v by fixkml sbt~bes

enacted by the m s i of the Unibed States or the empkyment of un a- to

""& or college faarlty members. The legis hlre shaY en- laws Tw the enfomment and s h a e Rr the punishment of any vidatlon of this sectkn.

"exhi bit 7'

I . . .: * - I

I I .

ia+i.M- immigration and Nabdmih Smvb (LNS) --

1

9) ~ % b , * ~ y a , . n * ~ m ) r r . g Z-awrerlarr-ola

8. you.esabrrfcllpemwrsntmyarr#yIlklhis krmkr: 1 voubswuiglwih 21 m

dd. Thesemwym.bbrr, r -hpolknrprnt - r ro l . Sb

---m--a- a 8. A m u d m I t h s gdned permanent nrsldence through

C. H t h s npt- ~ & n a ~ b o c n a I B

D. I Z E w * i t s , a W - r n - p h v x r v pesentatdmmarrIsgeoerwmny0nd-f-w3 -not-

--a 4 y o v p l o r ~ ~ ~ h - I h e

Y-nvniOrana 1- dsalhdyarhmqmsa-

F. A husband IX w t b # hs # dm wm b mdush, deportstlon. mschion, m j-d regerdirrghismha b-b~he ~~ ---% sbE6-,,,hm m&d&wEside lkrHedmkrakrgr#psr iod &mthsUdUm

0. A f # p b a n d o r rr i le i i q &tormy Oameral-has determkredthasuehdienl=-a- tomhbamarrlagebIhsprprwsdoua&rgthe Hnmigr+lknh

H. A m f W m m w b , r U n r , m-.

- - r r m s o r U S e o r # l l r ~ , a r r r ~ . d m i l l s d l o ~ l r r r b r I h e U d t s d -or

5) m d m - W f n w & R -- C. Document8 In a ford n Im uage must be rrmnpniad by a +--& b - m . me --- -is-

. m ~ I ~ h e a # m t ~ b b w s l a k

8 k W W d o e u m n b d o y O u d k - y R u u r a Unl#82rh.-t

" W r r a s b o m h - t t m U l i l s d ~ ~ I M S y o u r - R ll ym rrers nabrralized. giw INS your original

m o l - .

a U.S. thtt - f a a t ~ 5 y a m .

E tfywdpMhavctanydIhe-drrsrsbrrmin Q w r w m ~ a w uder a b b w * ~ # a c b l m t b r # l ~ 3 "

"exhibit 9aU

Testing Fraud I n . d d l l b n l o ~ l ~ p m b b m w l h t t m ~ p m o # . , t l m m h ~ r v i d w r s o f --R*-d--bY-(Lk.-)arlltb. ~ ~ I n 1 Q B 1 . t I m l w s - ~ u d r ~ Q T k ~ k F p m R k . h r r q c m M b .

-b--mb-8--wt0dwwnbh b p l d g ~ ~ ~ i r ~ I r d d ~ I C d ~ l 1 1 4 8 ~ d o m t ~ m ~ a l t ) a ~ h U S . ~ a r ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ l o h ~ .

"exhibit 9d'

"exhibit 9e'

"exhibit 9f"

A:. d. .&A+& I , -*2 -i

.- . . . . . .

Of- 4- -5339

"exhi bit 12'

V d m List

+ I r c ~ i .IESUS Q % 3&-2844 39 SAME ?

. $NCHEZ BE LUR q M 3L413970 28 W E - . .

$41~ CHEZ MANUEL E &H 364..5981 20 SAME

MChEZ M A W JESUS )Ir 36432844 30 SAME

WRlCELtA M lh 364-5616 22 SAME

WkEZ. WFUO ALBERT0 b @ ~ ~ 3 b 4 - ~ 8 6 6 21 SAME

~ W C H S ~ , MARMA qESII-Wo5-0834 39 SAME

I . & 85607 1988)(15102 824 4TH ST.

E WE2 W E M I 19981071M 751 - 00- 22 SAME 85807 1

$UCH.EZ =CARE 1saorcl2~o1 1

VISTA h#HP 3Cq.6123 39 BOX SOS 85608 1850107/ 9

8

M Ctr Ez OSCAR L 4LT . - 3M.4355 21 SAME 85607 7

1 I

- 1751 2 5 1

&N C ~ W PAMELA C : .I982#W19 933

- P M 3u2124 20 BOX 516

sp c.HEr RAMON J P 0 0 M 0 0 26 SAME

+M ~ € 2 . RUTH G 1992108/10 918 3 ~ 0 ~ ~ 1 F).1 3 h45542 20 PO BOX 3551 85608 19461051C1

Home ,w -

House Policy Committee

Policy Perspective Christopher Cox, Chairman

Clinton Administratron s Own Ven l~c t~ I 8 I 8

Damage From 'Citizenship USA' [INS] Can Never Be Undone

Last year the p m s rwealed rampant corruption and abuse in the Clinton Administration's scandal-wracked "Citizenship USA" program, a blatant attempt to naturalize a million prospective Clinton votes before ttre Presidential ekcthn,

News reports showed: (1) that control of the supposedly non-partisan $95 million taxpayer-funded initiative was moved from the INS b the Clinton White House; (2) that the AdminfsmUon turned naturalization over to advocacy groups linked to the Democratic Party; and (3) that the Admhktrabion failed to compW FBI background checks for nearly 20% of the r~ord-breaking 1.05 million people nakrralked in FY 1996.

In the ensuing scandal, the Clinton Administrabion repeatedly promised wholesale refom that would undo the damage from Citizenship USA and prevent fuhrre abuses. Now intend reports, oWMe reviews, and House and Senate hearings have rwealed that these w e E hollow promiss. By the Administration's own admission, the program m i n s a shambles, and the damage it has wrought can never be undone.

"exhibit 17a"

"m USA" and i t s Aftermath

The abuses in Cithenship USA have been wMdy reported, and on April 28, 1997 the Justice Departmenfs Insp-r General opened a massive investigation into altegations of "mismanagement, misconduct, and illegality" in the program. Members of Congress have asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an Independent Counsel to i n v w a t e all aspects of the scandal, including the mk of the Vice Resident--a reguest she has rejected.m In response to the avalanche of criticism, the Clinton Adminisbaaon has repeatedly promised to tighten screening procedures around the nation and to rwoke the cithmhip of those improperly naturalized under the program. Thee promises have not been kept.

"No Assurance That I N S Zs Not Continuing to Incorrectly Naturalize Aliensn

On November 29,1996, Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigrat)on and NaWraliration Servke (INS), issued a memorandum on "Naturalization Quality

. .

0; April 17,1997, the accounting and consulting hrm KPNG Peat Marnick completed an exhaustive 140-page survey, commissioned by the Department of Justice, of tk INS 's v n of the & o m . The suwey was based on on-site reviews at each of 24 regional and district offic~c over the course of five week. The offices collectkrely account for 85% of INS' Mturalbatlon w ~ r l d o a d . ~ Its resub were appalling: of the 24 INS surveyed, exaetfy one was found "complbnt" w&h the new p d u r e s . FRen--almost two-thirds--- fad b be ftatIy "non-compltant," and seven were rated "marginally compliant." As Chairman Abraham of the senate Immigmtbn Suhmmitke &W in wersigtrt h e m s on May I, 1997:

One D i Ofiice and two CRkenship USA s & e could not pduce the partlcubr policy memo they were supposed to be Implementing. Numerous offices were sending fingerprint cads bo the wrong FBI address, tbgerprint cards were completed lncomcdy, and worksheets that were required to be dated and inlWaled showed no evidence of key tasks being cornpkted.W

Small wonder the priva-r auditors s&bed ategodcatty, *We cannot provide assurance that INS is not continuing to i n c o w naturalize aliens with disqualifying conditions,"

L Gaping Loophole" *fi Fraud

The INS did not issue regulations to secure the Integrity of its crimkral background checks until three years after the Justice Departmenfs Inspector General and the General Accounting Office w a d the INS of what the Washington Post called "a gaping loophole" in its procedures. The gaping loophole was the fact that " [t] he INS, anxious to streamline the ccttrenship process, began accepting fingerprints handed in by the applicants themselves rather than perfomring the thne-consuming pmcedure in its offices. nm The mutt was that alkns with crlmiml records could easlly cheat the system by switching someone else's fbg erprlnts In place of their

But, even after a three-year delay in addressing this crMcal weaknes, the system is still dangerously flawed. The final program does not require the INS or even a law enforcement agency to take the applicants' fingerprlntr. Rather, any "Designated Fingerprint Service" c e M d by the INS--or even one not certified, but which is in the process of applying for certffication--would be abk to fornard the applicants' fhgerprinb on their own say-so. Worse, the new regulations actually permit such services to employ persons convkted of aggravated Montes and "crimes invoMng dishonesty."m And the INS list of services with approved or pendlng applications (I.e., organizations cumndy authorized to submit fingerprints, since simply fling an applicabion qualifk an organizabion to submit fhgerprkrts) indudpe tlquor stores, hairstylists, photo shops, b d a l shops, and advocacy groups. Even Hermandad Mexkana Nacional in Los Angek, now under I n m a t i o n far illegal a h vote fraud in the 19% el-on, remains authorized to collect applicants' fingerprink

As a result, Peat Mamkk's audit found that the "INS continues to have the most significant: control problems with the fingerprint proces and the identtkation of statutority-barred applicants." The Washin-n &st recently reported:

' At the Nebraska M c e Ceuliert one of two regionaI INS MIities in the central United Stabs, 95 petrent of tf?e fingerprint a& d m . ~ Ehe period under review were r e J e c W W t s e of emts in #/ling them out, &at Mawick said. In additson, the them and two OM like it ware Bud to be d i n g fingerprint ads to a "wrong FBI address. " N e v ~ e s s , the Nebraska center was r a m in "marginaj compliance" with the new regulations, while others in Calihmia, Texas and Vermont were demed "norumpliant. a

And the Nebraska Service Cenkr is not just any INS facilfty--it's the site of the nationwide "Fingerprint Clearance Coordination Center" established In June 19% to upgrade INS processing of fingerprint cards.

Repairing the Damage: "Highly Uncertain," Says INS

In the aftermath of the scandal, the Clinton INS promised to revoke the citizenship of those t had knpropedy This promise is also being broken. As a result of the Citizenship USA program, 180,000 immigrank naturalized in 19% did not undergo any fingerprint checks for criminal records. Now that these 180,000 have become citizens, the FBI and the INS cannot require them to provide their

"exhibit 17c"

fingerprints for background checks. The INS has no other prscticable way to check them.

Furthermore, according to an internal memo from INS General Counsel Davld Martin to Comm&skner Do& Mdssner, "R is highly uncertakr that the Depamnt could win or sustain a revocatbn based on a misrepresentation in the absence of pmof of an underlying statutory disqualification. . . ." In other words, even if the INS and FBI could prove that newly naturalbed aliens lied an their citizenship applications, it wouM be impossible to denahraltze them unless they had aka been convicted of a felony--despite the fact that lying in such circumstances ordinarily precludes naturalization.

In short, the improper naturalizations rammed through the process at the direction of the Clinton White House to assist the Presidents re-election are permanent. They will never be undone.

Conclusion

In politkalty abusing the United State agency and system that confers the gift of citizenship, the W h k I-touse violated one of the most solemn responsibilities of government--and exposed the Mtion to new criminal predators in the bargain. When the scandal was exposed, the Clinton Administration promised Congress and the American people that the comption and fraud would cease forttmrtth. They promised that criminak would no longer be a d m M to cititenship. And they promised that those crkninats already admitted would be found and stripped of citizenship. None of these promise has been fulfilted; the last, by the Adminlstraticin's own admission, never will be.

I. "Hearlng Set on Naturaliiathn Process," Reuters, April 30, 1997. For general background on the program, see *Clinton White House Turns Foreign Crooks Into U.S. Citizens," House Policy Commitk Policy Perspective, October 28,1996.

Committee Irnmigntbn and Ctairrrs SubcommRk and the Govenunent Reform ancl Oversight Commitbe SubnunUte on NatSonaI Semi*, Intamtionaf AfWrs and

3. Sta&ment of A s s i s m m e y General for Admkristrabion Stephen Colgate, U.S. Justice Depattment, before the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Commkte, 0.7, May 1,1997.

4. Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Immigration Subcommittee, Hearing on INS Oversight: The Criminal Record Verificatbn Process for Citizenship Applicanb," p. 4, May 1, 1997.

5. "INS Says It May Never Find Naturalized Criminals," Washington Post, May 1, 1997,

6. S&tement of Hon. Lamar Smlth, Chahman, House 3udiciry Committee

"exhibit 17d'

Subcommitte on fmmigration and Cbims, Hearing on Safeguarding the Integrity of the Naturalization Process, April 30, 1997.

7. Id.

8, "Audit Faulb INS Practices: Criminals May Still Be Getting Citkenship," Washington Post, p,Al, April 19,1997.

. Tatimony or INS (;omissloner ru at pp.11-: EUM from Cornmlssbner Mehsner to sen. John Kfl, November 15,1996, Ma* 5t p.3 (" instance of improper naturalization is of concm to us. If it is determind that improper naturalization has occumd, we W move quickly ta hwsUbk 7 denaturalization proceedings."'

Comnsntaty and Edlor's Notes wrQten CoWrigm Q by: LTC Midrael G. Lew#hal

-2#IDmrwll-----M

"exhibit 17e"

"exhibit 18'

'exhibit 19'

SIO1V\TLWP ROSTER FOR BEMWAL LLKTIM DI ll/07/2&0 MXl* VmER LXST PAOE: W PAhC1m: m CARL-'

REW) lYIQ wpAe88 PTY RE9 DATE Bfn FIR UfR HDBP YUID BEFORE WIM EL- MUST 810)( WRZ:

jaikd for -baby -m - -I=.. m p J m w w ~ ~ ~ . p ~ ~ w ~ y u u ~ u u ~ ~ - u r . .

THEY INDE ENDENT Three jailed for Mexico baby smuggling racket

"exhibit 21"

"exhibit 22"

Denise I. tundin

Clerk of the Superior Court

Cochise County, A&ona

Nwembr 23,2010

FILED

I Ali i N m M e n s o n , Cunsmbnt, ~ . - C V 2 0 1 ~ 7 7 Novmberr 5,20f 0, Novembr 19,2010 Request exkntsh

on sewice to CMItemtai pertrainhg to this -: Ken Bennett, m n a S m s b r y of State, and C)on C m , USCIS Mr., Ofilee of Fmud Ostectkn and Nathal Security, dl in offidal qmcitk.

Thank you,

Alice NwoaBensm

Contestant

Print Version > Rumors hound judge: Unfounded claims about her citizenship status spread Page 1 of 5

News

Rumors hound judge: Unfounded Print Page

claims about her citizenship status spread By Jonathan Clark HeraldIReview

Published: Sunday, June 3,2007 1 1 : 18 AM MST

DOUGLAS - Ever since she was appointed as magistrate for the city of Douglas in 2002, Alma Vildosola has been hearing the rumors.

She's heard them whispered through the local grapevine, she's read them as blog posts, and she's cod3onted them during court challenges to her 2006 election as justice of the peace in Cochise County's Precinct 2.

The rumors, which purport that Vildosola is not a U.S. citizen, or, worse, that she is an illegal immigrant, are baffling to the 48-year-old Mexican-born judge, who has been a U.S. citizen for more than 10 years.

"I don't understand it," Vildosola said. "Do these people really think that the state supreme court would let me be a judge if I were an illegal immigrant?"

The rumors and the insistence of those who propagate them are also baffiine to her supporters, like former Superior Court Justice James Riley, who represented Vildosola during a court challenge last fall fiom McNeal resident Alice Novoa-Benson.

Novoa-Benson tried unsuccessllly to annul Vildosola's Democratic primary victory on the grounds that, among other things, she did not meet citizenship or residency requirements.

"It's provably true that Alma is a naturalized citizen," Riley said. "It's a matter of public record, and if these people would just take the trouble to search the public record, they wouldn't make such baseless allegations."

Indeed, after Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett was charged with murder in Vildosola's court on April 23, several readers wrote or called the HeraldA2eview urging an investigation of the judge's legal status. A 10-minute visit to the Cochise County Elections Office yielded a copy of Vildosola's naturabtion certificate, which showed the judge had become a citizen on Sept. 24,1996, at U.S. District Court in Tucson.

Print Version > Rumors hound judge: Unfounded claims about her citizenship status spread Page 2 of 5

The document was fded with the office on June 6,2006, and copies are available to any member of the public upon request, said County Elections Director Tom Schelling.

Questions about Vildosola's residency in the U.S. were similarly resolved after a minutes-long investigation at the county Assessor's Office, where records revealed Vildosola purchased property on 13th Street in Douglas in July 1997 and that she owns a single-family home on the parcel.

The house was built in 2000, the records show, and has been classified since then as owner occupied.

Vildosola's husband, an architect based in Agua Prieta, Sonora, designed the home, the judge said.

"It's a very nice house," she noted modestly.

A 'prophet of God' spreads the word

Novoa-Benson, who grew up in the Douglas-Agua Prieta area with Vildosola, has been perhaps the judge's loudest and most persistent accuser.

A regular and unsuccessll candidate for justice of the peace in Precinct 2, Novoa-Benson doggedly challenges her losses in court, where she alleges widespread voting by illegal immigrants.

According to an Aug. 20,2003, story in the Arizona Daily Star, Novoa-Benson made her case during one challenge in Cochise County Superior Court by quoting fiom the Bible and claiming she was "a prophet of God" on a mission to ''take back the sovereignty of our nation."

She lost the case.

In October 2006, she filed a complaint alleging that Vildosola and her Republican rival George Hoke had won tainted primaries, supporting her claim with a sparsely worded one-page memo titled "Disputed and More Problematic Residency, Citizenship, and Illegal Voting the Primary Election 12 September 2006 Cochise County Arizona."

In addition to allegations of illegal voting in both party primaries, Novoa-Benson claimed Vildosola "was not at the time of the election eligible to (sic) the office because of residency and citizenship requirements."

She did not produce any evidence to support the citizenship or residency allegations, and the claim was dismissed on a technicality - despite Novoa-Benson's request, based on a 1928 legal precedent, for a continuance.

Dismissed from the judicial system, the "Disputed and More Problematic Residency" memo quickly found its way onto the Web site of the anti-illegal-immigration biker group American Freedom Riders, fiom which it spurred a series of postings titled "Illegal Alien Wins Primary Electionyy on right-wing blogs such as Freedom Folks and Immigration Watchdog.

The accusations also were picked up by the local political Web site The Anderson Report, named after its publisher, Sierra Vista resident and former chair of the Cochise County Republican Committee Ben Anderson Jr.

Print Version > Rumors hound judge: Unfounded claims about her citizenship status spread Page 3 of 5

"Vildosola's green card or citizenship status papers are replete with obvious inconsistencies that make her candidacy for any U.S. elected office highly suspect," Anderson wrote on his Web site, adding: "There are very strong suspicions and allegations that Alma Vildosola is actually an illegal alien."

Anderson was not relying on his own research when he made these statements, he told the Herald/Review. His principal source was Novoa-Benson.

And while he acknowledged that Novoa-Benson's courtroom histrionics might make her a questionable source, Anderson said he trusted the b o a s of documents she had collected as alleged evidence.

"The methodology that she used and the research that she did was absolutely incredible," he insisted.

Furthermore, even if Vildosola's natmdization certificate, the document that ultimately determines U.S. citizenship, is authentic, Anderson said, skeptics like him won't trust it because they don't trust the government that issued it.

"There's just a lack of trust and faith in officialdom," he said.

As for Novoa-Benson's voluminous research, she failed to bring any of it to the October 2006 hearing, but told the Herald/Review to "wait and see," that she would produce it at a later date.

Repeated telephone calls last week to her cell and home numbers went unanswered.

The filmmaker and the traffic citation

Novoa-Benson' s allegations against Vildosola caught the attention of another local resident: documentary filmmaker Mercedes Maharis of Hereford, who had her own bone to pick with Vildosola after a contentious civil traffic case.

In August 2004, Maharis found herself in Vildosola's municipal court in connection with a fender bender in downtown Douglas. When Vildosola found Maharis responsible for a citation fee but excused a ticket issued to the other driver, Maharis accused the judge of unfairness and appealed to the Cochise County Superior Court.

She lost the appeal and was required to pay the $130 citation fee. And so when Novoa-Benson showed her some of her alleged evidence against Vildosola, Maharis was intrigued.

"Alice Novoa-Benson brought me a lot of papers, and I wanted to know more, because I was severely wounded by this person," explained Maharis, producer/director of the 2005 DVD documentary "Cochise County USA: Cries from the Border."

So she tagged along to Novoa-Benson's October 2006 election challenge at the Superior Court in Bisbee. She also approached the local Republican Party headquarters, where campaign volunteers say she reported possible problems with Vildosola's citizenship, and claimed that Vildosola's home address in Douglas was actually a vacant lot.

Had she done her own public records investigation into Vildosola's citizenship prior to suggesting potential problems to others?

Print Version > Rumors hound judge: Unfounded claims about her citizenship status spread Page 4 of 5

"I didn't know how to do it," she insisted. "That's why I went to Republican Party headquarters and asked them to investigate."

Her claim that Vildosola's residence was a vacant lot was, however, the result of a records search at the county Assessor's Office, she said, although it was unclear how her results differed so greatly fiom those obtained by the Herald/Review.

Maharis said she never followed up on her vacant lot suspicion by going to Vildosola's home address of 2901 E. 13th St., as listed in the telephone book and other county records. If she had, she might have seen a 2,940-square-foot home at the comer of East 13th Street and Encanto Avenue with the number 290 1 prominently displayed and Vildosola's gold Mercury Sable sedan parked in front.

At least one local official was not impressed with Maharis' j o d i s t i c technique.

"She got a little bit of misinformation from someone, and she not only perpetuated it but she embellished it," said Douglas Mayor Ray Borane.

"If she's a journalist, she should verify it for herself without going around half-cocked and causing all this malicious harm to people."

Maharis, however, defended her approach. She said she received some information that seemed credible, and followed up by asking questions about it.

"I didn't smear anybody," she said. "It's a h e country and I can ask. I will not be maligned because I ask questions."

Possible motives behind why claims were made

Vildosola isn't sure what caused Novoa-Benson to tum on her. They knew each other as girls, she said, back when Vildosola was attending Douglas High School, and they never had any major disagreements.

As for her other critics, those who have picked up on Novoa-Benson's allegations of non-citizenship and non-residency, Vildosola suspects they are upset by the idea of a judge who is both a woman and Hispanic.

Recalling her traffic case with Maharis, she said that after her ruling, Maharis alleged she was being victimized by a Hispanic conspiracy.

"She started saying that because I was Hispanic, the police officer was Hispanic and the other driver was Hispanic, that I was teaming up with them," she said.

Borane thinks the allegations against Vildosola result from a misunderstanding of Douglas' border- town culture. Outsiders can overreact, he said, when they see how people like Vildosola, who have family and fiiends in both the U.S. and Mexico, move freely back and forth across the border.

Others, like Cecile Lumer, head of the Bisbee-based immigrant-rights group Citizens for Border Solutions, believe the persistent attacks on the judge's citizenship reveal an ugly anti-irnmigraat side of the local anti-illegal-immigration movement.

Print Version > Rumors hound judge: Unfounded claims about her citizenship status spread Page 5 of 5

"I definitely think that this kind of rumor-mongering has its roots in racism, just as I think that much of the anti-immigrant stance of people also has a strong racist element," she said.

For her part, Maharis flatly denies any anti-Hispanic motivations, and cited her experiences living in Central America, teaching under-privileged Hispanic kids and learning to speak Spanish.

"I love the Latin culture," she said. "I have a master's degree in Latin American studies."

Anderson also rejected the claim of racism. The anger fueling the rumors about Vildosola, he said, comes from people who resent what they see as a permissive attitude in Douglas toward illegal immigration, as well as a history of corruption in the city.

As long as that anger is there, Anderson predicted, rumors will continue to circulate about Vildosola's citizenship, whether there is evidence behind them or not.

"It's become an urban legend that has stuck," he said.

As for Vildosola, she says she's learned to take the accusations in stride, no matter how malicious or untrue.

"At first it bothered me, because you never know how people will use rumors to hurt you," she said.

"But then you sort of get used to it, especially when you know that it's not true."

HERALD/REVIEW reporter Jonathan Clark can be reached at 5 15-4693 or by e-mail at jonathan.clark@bisbeereview.net.

Copyright 0 201 0 -

Name of Person Filing: Your Address: Your Cii , State, Zip Code: Your Telephone Number: .- , ATLAS Number (if applicable): Attorney Bar Number (i applicable): Representing: @ Self (Without an Attwney) Petitioner Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY

Name of F

and

Name Respondent V '&d&

Case No.:

SUMMONS

WARNING: This is an official document from the court that affects your rights. Read this carefully. If you do not understand it, contact a lawyer for help.

FROM THE STATE OF ARKONA TO: Name of Respondent

1. A lawsuit has been filed against you. A copy of the lawsuit and other court papers are served on you with this "Summons".

ce '

Clerk of Superior Court, 142 ./ , Arizona, 85374. Mail a copy of your "Answer" to on the top of this Summons.

red process server or filed within TWENTY

r or the Sheriff

ade. Service by Publication

@Superior Court of Arimna in Mcopa County June 27,2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SUM

Case No.

You can get a copy of the court papers filed in this case from the Petitioner at the address at the top of this paper, or from the Clerk of the Superior Court's Customer Service Center at 601 West Jackson, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 or at 222 East Javelina Drlve, Mesa, Arizona 85210.

5. Requests for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities must be made to the offlce of the judge or commissioner assigned to the case, at least five (5) days before your scheduled court date.

ED AND sEAqk3.&&ate . * . - -

F, CLERK OF COURT

. * I

QSuperior Cowt of Arizona in Mariapa County June 27,2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SUM

Page 2 of 2 DRl i f

U s e only most current version

f i e N m a - h n , Pro Per

4916 West Tumbhecd Lane McNed, Arizona 8561 7

Phone: 520) 266-2753

Alice N o v o a - h n , - Plaintiff, h e Numbcr: CV 201000977

before the Honorable James A. Soto

INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THB STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THf3 COUNTY OF COCHISB

1 1 1 1 1

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Ausuant to ARCivP Rule 1 l(a)) Alma Vildwola, J.P.2 k: ec 4 1

Defendants. 1 1

COUNSSLPOR RB?SR3NDENTAIUAVILDOSO]tA, J-f, BfW HAS VIOLATED R W 1 l(a)

1. Plaintiff asserts that on page 2,at paragraph l,lines6-9, of Vildorola's "Response to Verified Mrdrvit of Contest and Motion to Dismh and Motion for Sa~~ctions", James L.llihy (hereafter, Riley) has rmdc the followin8

rcatement, "Bvery (iqL one d bfs. Nova-kntion'a .Uegadom, as set forth in her initial fib8 and in the "Amended Verified AfBckvit of obtcrt," were raised in the previous ch.llcapw she fa."

2, Whereas ARCivP Rule ll(r) trpticitly states tho fobwing 'The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a cerdncate by the signer that the signer has read the Heading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and bd*f formed dter rewnable inquiry it is weil grounded in fact and is nrnnted by existing kr or a good faith

argument...!' . It is clearly evident within BUey's q d rtrtcment above in 1

(1)

chat he has read the "Amended Verifd Aff~davit of Contestn because he cites it with

authority, as well as being well read in all of the previous filings by the -riff i s he

references those alsa wirh authority, which would indicate he has satisfied ARCivP Rule 1 l(a) as to a "belief formed after reasonable inquiryw. Mr. Riley has interposed these statements for

an improper purpose, being to harass the PIainiff in a bad faith argument, as Mr. Riiey

knows chat Piaintiff has never advanced the allegation chai Vddosola has in fact violated the

Arizona Gnscicuthn at Article 18, Scction 10 or the ARS at 38- 201(AXB), as plaintiff has

just located the foregoing law between the time of filing the previous primary W n g e and

rhe fw of chis instant election ddenge. A review of ali previous filings will show the intent

ro mislead this Court by Mr. Riley's srrrtemmr. Plainriff believes rhe foregoing shows the

truth of the scatanent and also demonscrates chat Mr. Riley's stat- was not g m d io

fact, one more violations of ut%rP Rule 1 l(a), for a mral of 3 viofacions of same.

3. Plaintiff understands that a telephonic conference whicb was held at 850 a.m. on Decembu gch, 201 0 and presided over by your Honor, the Honorable James A. Soro, is nor a

signed pleading, motion or other paper, but it does have a record, and is also recorded in the

mind of the attendees. Plaintiff would ask chat the statement by Mr. Rifey char he made

during that conference that he was m e t served wirh Plaintiff s Am& Vetifid Affidavit

of Conrest h reviewed and compared to the atcsched copy of the "RETURN AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE" fmm tbc Office of rhe Sheriff, Cochise County, that was

stamped filed by the Clerk of Superior Courr, Denise I Luadia on December lsr, 2010 at la8

p.m. and is reflective of senricc being petfccred upoa rUma ViHosola at 661 GAve., Donghis, Arizona by Deputy Sheriff V. Martinez on November 24,2010 at 12:50. Again, Plaintiff

understands chis is not a pleading, motion or other paper, but is is Plaintiffs pose that this

misstatement was made co barass, cause unaecessary delay and needicssiy increase the cost of

litigation to Plainriff, dl of which are also viokctons of ARCmP Rule 1 l(a).

4. Whe!reas, it is scared within ARCivP Rule 1 l(a) that, "upon motion or upan in awn

iniriativc, shall impose upon the person who signed i ~ , a represenred pry, or both, an

(2)

appropriare sanction, wbich may include an order to pay co the other party or pnieg the

amount of the r e 8 5 0 d h expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, indud& s reasonable arcorney's fee. "

CONCLUSION

Plainriff rcquescs that rhis Howtable Court shall impwe rhe r e r u a d e sanctions it

. deems proper for this infraction of chc Rules a d abusive litigation. Plaint-iff, from che

beginoing has only desired the whole truth a d is posed to conrinue seeking thar.

Respecrfully submitted, r h i s d h day of December, 2010

\3mB

Alice Novoa-Benson, Pro k 49 1 6 Wet Tumblt~ecd Lane

McNeai, Arizona 8561 7

Bone: 520) 266-2753

I hereby certify that coo the a day of ~ecernba, 2010 I cued the attached document co be delivered to the Clerk of this Court's Offiie and have caused to be behered a

copy of same to the concerned adverse parties by depositing same with 1st dass p a g e

within the United States k t a l Service on the day of December, 2010 as addressed to:

1. James L. Riley, Arcorncy for Respondcnr Vdcbsola

P.0. Box 1035

Bisbce, Arizona 85603

2. Brim W. Hanson, Chicf Civil Dcpury

150 Quality Hill M 2nd Floor

P.O. Drawer CA Bisbee. AZ 85603

3. Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State Copicoi Eatecucive Tower, 7th Floor

1700 West Washington Street Ph~enbt, AZ 85007-2888

S .Don Croeetti, hc.Dir. Fraud Dcrecrioo and National Security

1100 Hampcon Park M. Capiral Heights, MD, US 20743

the Unit

4916 West Tumbhccd Lane McNenl, Arizona 8561 7

Phone: 520) 266-2753

Alice Novoa-Bemon, Pn, Per

49 16 West T u m b l d Lane McNcal, Arizona 856 17

Phone: 520) 266-2753

BY ,,.--.--4-- IN THR SUP3BIOR COURT OF THB STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCHISE

AUce Novoa-Benson, Contestant,

Case PJumba: CV 201000977

PROOF OF SERVICE/ CERTIPfCAl'E OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTBST -

AM) AAamBD VlBBIPfBD AFFIDAVIT OF CONTBST UPOW RESPONDBNTS ALMA VIIDOSOLA,JP2,BIgCS AND

CXRISTINB RHODES, COCHISE COUNTY RBCORDER

On the 22nd day of November, 2010, Contestant deposited with a person named 'Wul S at the Cochisc Guncy Shetiff's Office located in mbcc, Arb, taro '

(2) armpltre sets of copies of the documents aced in the title of this "proof of service"

for service by Cochise Caunry Sheriff Deputies upon the two (2) Respondents cited in

the tide above.The Deputies made service on the 23rd and 24th of November, 2010

and deposited the report thereof with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to ARCivP Rule

4(g). A copy of the receipt for payment of service, dated November 22,2010, in che

amount of eighty dollars US ($80.00) is hercco actorched.

I swear or & i i that the foregoing i~ true to the best atmy knowledge.

AJ?' AJice Novoa-Bcnso~~, pi0 Per

49 16 West Tumblcwd Lane

McNeal, Arizona 85617

Sworn or a f f d before me,

day of December, 2010 tb

My c o d n expires

NOTARY STAMP

0&e of the Sheriff 1

Cochise County

RETURN AND AFmDAV1T OF SERVICE

STATE OF ARIZONA ) 85

COUNTY OF COCHISE )

SERVE: Alma VlMorola

CASE # CV201000977

I "EREBY CERTIFY Election ChallengelAmended.

\

( ) Service upon s pemn of suitable age and dkretion at usual place of abode of the Defendant who waa cduont them from. Relationship

( ) Service upon the duly designated agent for srwice of process for tho Defendant

( ) Waa unable to locate Defendant

( ) Other: 9

FEES: service Nobty Other Mileage

TOTAL S Peace Officer, nerd not be Notarhot!

Subscribed and Sworn to me, a Notary Public, this day af ,2010-

Notary Public