2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Richard Smith 1649 Magnum Court Stockton, CA 95206

In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN STOCKTON BRANCH

SAMUEL FANT, JR.,,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD SMITH,

Defendant

Case No.: STK-CV-UD-2016-3776

DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEF AMA TI ON-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL

Defendant Richard Smith responds to the Plaintiffs allegations as follows:

General Allegations

ALLEGATION #1: Defendant denies this allegation. At no time did the Defendant

engage in any "calculated acts of character assignation" against the Plaintiff.

ALLEGATION #2: The allegation is true. On the evening of February 9, 2016 the

defendant received a telephone call from the Plaintiff. The main subject of the telephone call

was the Plaintiff calling the Defendant to ascertain if the Defendant was coming to speak to

the School Board that evening about the School District misusing Mello-Roos taxes collected

from the Defendants community. When the Defendant told the Plaintiff that he was coming

to the School Board meeting the Plaintiff responded, "If you guys come and speak on this

item, I'm going to f you guys up! I'm gonna f Dale up." Later that evening the

Defendant did repeat the Plaintiffs statement to Dale Fritchen in order to ask him what he

thought was the meaning of the threat from the Plaintiff. Exhibit A contains a true and

correct copy of the Defendants phone record for that date and time.

ALLEGATION #3: The defendant does agree that the statement quoted in allegation

3 appeared on Facebook on February 10, 2016. The defendant cannot respond to who was the

DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL- I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

actual poster of the statement and who the poster was referring to as "School Board

Member". Nowhere in the post does it indicate who the poster was referring to as there a

many "School Board Members" that he/she could have been referring to in the post.

ALLEGATION #4: The defendant agrees to this allegation. The defendant did post

"Yes it was threatening and certainly disturbing."

ALLEGATION #5: The defendant cannot speak to th.is allegation because he does not

know what were the beliefs of Andre Johnson regarding the post or ifhe was speaking of the

Plaintiff in the post since it did not refer to the Plaintiff by name. Nowhere in any of the posts

is it specified which School Board Member they are referring to.

ALLEGATION #6: The defendant cannot speak to this allegation because he does not

know what were the beliefs of Shana Hassan regarding the post or if she was speaking of the

Plaintiff in the post since it did not refer to the Plaintiff by name. Nowhere in any of the posts

is it specified which School Board Member they are referring to. The Defendant believes that

the signatures mentioned in the post refer to signatures for a petition to stop the Mello-Roos

Tax in the Defendants community and not to a recall petition.

ALLEGATION #7: The defendant cannot speak to this allegation as it is impossible

to determine the actual nwnber of people who actually read the post. The Defendant reminds

the Court that the post does not name the Plaintiff and there is no way to determine if the

readers had any idea who the "School Board Member" was who was mentioned in the post

because it is never specified.

ALLEGATION #8: (Erroneously marked as allegation 6 in the complaint) The

defendant cannot speak to this allegation because he does not know what were the beliefs of

Dale Fritchen regarding the text. The Defendant believes that Mr. Fritchen was referring to

the statement, "If you guys come and speak on this item, I'm going to you guys up! I' m

gonna f Dale up." made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the night before.

ALLEGATION #9: (Erroneously marked as allegation 7 in the complaint) The

Defendant states that this allegation is not true. At no time did the Defendant say to Vice DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL-2

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mayor Christina Fugazi that the Plaintiff, "was going to kick our asses." The Defendant

believes that if Ms. Fugazi was called to testify she would state that Defendant never said

this.

ALLEGATION #10: (Erroneously marked as allegation 8 in the complaint) The

Defendant declares that this allegation is not true. At no time has the Defendant engaged in

"falsely spreading defamatory messages that the plaintiff is violent, and that defendant will

threaten to take, and take violent, criminal action including but not limited to assault and/or

battery on members of the community."

ALLEGATION #11 : (Erroneously marked as allegation 9 in the complaint) The

Defendant declares that this allegation is not true. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff did

say to the Defendant, "If you guys come and speak on this item, I'm going to you guys

up! I'm gonna f Dale up."

ALLEGATION #12: (Erroneously marked as allegation 9 in the complaint) The

Defendant declares that this allegation is not true. The Defendant at no time made any

statements for the reasons described by the Plaintiff.

ALLEGATION #13: (Erroneously marked as allegation IO in the complaint) The

Defendant cannot speak to this allegation as it is the opinion of the Plaintiff and cannot be

determined to be true or false. Any reductions in the number of signups in the youth program,

if even true, might be due to the actions or inactions of the Plaintiff.

ALLEGATION #14: (Erroneously marked as allegation 11 in the complaint) The

Defendant must deny this allegation as it is not true in part. The Plaintiff actually did say the

statement and it actually did occur as declared in this response. The Defendant is not

responsible for any harm causes to the Plaintiff for a true statement.

DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL-3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

ANSWERS TO

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - SLANDER,

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - SLANDER PER SE,

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - LIBEL

THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEFEDANT IS THE TRUTH

The first defense in a suit complaining slander, slander per se, and libel is that the

communication is the truth. The Defendant states unequivocally that the Plaintiff did in fact call

him on February 9, 2016 and did in fact state, "If you guys come and speak on this item, I'm

going to you guys up! I'm gonna Dale up." In these type of cases it frequently comes

down to a "he said, she said", situation. It appears in this case that is the circumstances. The

burden of proof in these types of actions lies with the Plaintiff. He must prove he did not make

that statement. If he can't prove that he did not make the statement, then his case fails.

The Defendant does provide evidence to the court that the Plaintiff has a history of making

intimidating statements to others when he does not get what he wants or thinks he deserves. In

2014-15 the San Joaquin County Grand Jury did an investigation of the Manteca School District

Board of which the Plaintiff is a member. It found evidence that the Plaintiff used intimidation in

achieving his goals. The report stated, "Initial interviews began in March 2015 and revealed

there were major problems plaguing MUSD, largely as a result of the behavior of Board

members, and particularly increasing since the November 2014 election. Numerous local media

reports indicated that recent actions taken by some Board members had riled many constituents,

especially in the Weston Ranch community. Subsequent interviews made it clear that numerous

District employees were fearful of some trustees. Board meetings had become contentious.

Administrators were compelled to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with Board

members' demands, especially demands coming from Mrs. Drain and Mr. Fant. These two Boar DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL-4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

members knew that a single board member has no more power than any citizen, however, they

used perceived power to inappropriately achieve their ends." (See Exhibit B)

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS

FREE SPEECH AGAINST PUBLIC FIGURES

In the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that

certain defamatory statements were protected by the First Amendment. The case involved a

newspaper article that said unflattering things about a public figure, a politician. The Court

pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should

be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court acknowledged that in public discussions -­

especially about public figures like politicians -- mistakes can be made. If those mistakes are

"honestly made," the Court said, they should be protected from defamation actions. The court

made a rule that public officials could sue for statements made about their public conduct only if

the statements were made with "actual malice." The Plaintiff is a public figure in this case and

knows that is that position he must be subject to the free speech statements of the public he

serves. In this case he made a statement to the Defendant that could be interpreted as a threat or

at minimum, intimidation. The intent of the statement by the Plaintiff was to try to get the

Defendant and Mr. Fritchen to not exercise their free speech rights at the School Board meeting.

The defendant has a free speech right to criticize the Plaintiff on his actions in regards to his

public office.

DAMAGES

The Plaintiff claims unspecified damages due to the alleged .. loss of reputation, shame,

mortification, and emotional distress" caused by the Defendant asking others what they thought

about the Plaintiffs statement to the Defendant. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff is a public

figure and should be aware that that profession comes with a certain level of inspection of his

actions by the public, the alleged "loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and emotional DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL - 5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

l3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

distress" from the alleged actions of the Defendant pales in comparison to the " loss ofreputation

shame, mo1tification, and emotional distress" caused by the Plaintiffs actions in other areas whil

on the School Board. The Plaintiff has been charged with election fraud and perjury for his role

in helping to fellow board member get elected which lead to the board members being charged

also and resigning. (See Exhibit C) The Plaintiff was investigated by the San Joaquin Grand Jury

which found misconduct on his part. The Plaintiff was targeted by law enforcement in a

gambling investigation. (See Exhibit 0) Plaintiff was charged with felony election fraud and

conspiracy charges. (See Exhibit E) All of these actions and many more have done greater

damage for "loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and emotional distress" for the Plaintiff

then the alleged acts of the Defendant.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant unequivocally states the statements Plaintiff made the statements to him and he

only was asking for other what the perceived the threatening statements mean. The Defendant

was not trying in any way to damage the reputation of the Plaintiff and was careful to avoid

using his name publically. The Plaintiff is a public figure who knows that that office includes

criticism of his actions and has a high bar to reach to prove the complaints. This action on the

part of the Plaintiff appears to be harassment of the Defendant in itself. And is one way that the

Plaintiff found to "f you guys up!" as he stated to the Defendant on February 9th 2016. The

Defendant prays to the court for the complaint to be deemed frivolous and summarily dismissed

and be awarded and court costs and legal fees.

Dated this 20th of May, 2016.

Richard Smith In Pro Per

DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-SLANDER, SLANDER PER SE, AND LIBEL-6

EXHIBIT A

I

02/ 08/ 16 12 :33 PM to STOCKTON/ CA (2Q2l Sl S Bl20 $0 .00

02/08/16 12: 35 PM Incoming !1£2.) ·~ 6697 so 00

02/08/ 16 12: 38 PM Incoming 12Q'Ol 5i8·~l2? so 00

02/08/16 12:S l PM Incom~ng (209} 627-9840 T-Moblle to T-Mob!le so .oo

02/08/16 12: 54 PM Incoming !lQ2J 627-9840 T- ,-to t>Ue to T-Mot>Ue so .oo

02/08/16 l2: S8 PM to TRACf/CA (209) 627-9540 T·Moblle to T·Moblle so .co

02/08/16 1:00 PM to STOCKTON/CA ~) 292-<lC8 T·MOblle to T-Moblle so 00

02/08/16 2 :21 PM to TRACf/CA !:ZQS:l ~Q-~7~2 ) S0 .00

02/08/16 2:26 PM to STOCKTON/ CA ''QG) 2:!:· 1Q§J $0 .00

02/ 08/16 2:50 PM Incoming !Z~l 22§-~QUI T·Moblle to T·Moblle so .oo

02/08/16 4 :08 PM to SAN MATEO/CA {6~Ql i2J·Q~ 7 $0 .00

02/08/16 4: 21 PM to TRACf/CA , ,2~l §jF ·Se.:Q T· Moblle to T· Moblle S0 .00

02/08/ 16 4 :43 PM to STOO<TON/CA (2C21 <;§6--.:Q7' T-Moblle to T-MobUe so 00

02/08/ 16 5 :15 PM to STOCKTON/CA !ZQQj C:§6-!QZ:Z T-Moblle to T-Moblle so.oo

02/08/16 6 :09 PM to STOCKTO'</CA (200} 2~~-4C7,I, • T- Moblle to T-Moblle so .oo

02/08/16 6:28 PM Incoming {2C2) 986-4072 4 T-Moblle to T-MobUe so .oo

02/08/16 6:4) PM Incoming (2o<ll 2.1.. j197§ T-MobHe to T-Moblle so .oo

02/08/16 8 :34 PM to TRACf/CA !l.Q'zl 627-9840 T-Moblle to T-Mobile so .oo

02/08/16 8:54 PM to TRACf/ CA {209} 6AQ-4 782 1 so.oo

02/08/16 8:56 PM Incoming ill.?.Uli:.2.ll 16 so .oo

02/08/ 16 9:12 PM to TRACf/CA (2C9) 640-4782 so .oo

02/ 09/16 10 :21 AM Incoming {925} ?. !2·F2Z 4 so .oo

02/09/16 10:4) AM Incoming (8S'ij 977-36-iO 1 so .oo

02/09/ 16 11 :15 AM to OU6UNSNRM/ CA !llil 216-4268 1 $0 .00

02/09/16 11:22 AM to DUBLINSNRM/CA {925} 216 4268 so.oo

02/09/ 16 12:22 PM Incoming (209) Z9:'-9C20 T-Moblle lo T-Moblle so .oo

02/09/ 16 12:44PM to STOCKTON/CA poqi 986-<076 T- Moblle to T· Moblle so.oo

02/ 09/ 16 1:10 PM to TRACf/ CA {709) 627 9640 T- Moblle to T-Moblle so .oo

02/09/ 16 1:13 PM to TRACf/CA {2Q2l ~-7 2~4Q 1 T-Moblle to T- Moblle $0 .00

02/09/16 1:25 PM to STOCKTON/CA {lli~ 1 T- Moblle to T · Mobl~ $0 .00

02/09/16 1:26 PM to STOCKTON/CA {lli~ T-Moblle to T- Moblle $0 .00

02/09/16 1:28 PM to SAN MATEO/ CA {!i~Ql 77 J-Q~47 $0 .00

02/09/16 1:33 PM VM Retrieval 123 Volcemall $0.00

02/09/16 1:36 PM to STOCKTON/ CA £209l z2,-41 Qa T· Moblle to T· Moblle $0 .00

02/09/16 1:43 PM I ncoming (202} q~Vi·4 Q72 1 T· Moblle to T· Moblle so .oo

02/09/16 1:SS PM to STOCKTON/CA Wl2l 22.:-• lQ~ T· Moblte to T- Moblle S0.00

02/09/16 1:59 PM to STOCKTON/ CA {209} 986-4072 T-Moblle to T·Moblle $0.00

02/09/16 2: 03 PM lnc.omlng {209) 969-C3j10 1 $0.00

02/09/16 2 :30 PM to STOCKTON/CA UQ!/l 989-4072 4 T-Moblle to T· Moblle so.oo

02/09/16 ) :)) PM to MAHTKA,ICA P C>l'l 6!2·8297 1 $0 .00

02/09/16 4:06 PM Incoming ~~ $0.00

02/09/16 4:31 PM Incoming J.lQ2) 601-01 86 $0.00

02/09/16 4 :52 PM to STOCKTON/CA {2o<ll 286-4072 T· Moblle to T·Moblle $0.00

02/09/16 4 : 59 PM Incoming {209} 627·9!!=0 T- Moblle to T· Moblle $0.00

02/09/ 16 S:01 PM Incoming (2021 627-9840 T·Moblle to T·Moblle $0 .00

02/09/ 16 S:14 PM I ncomtno Wl2l 627-9540 T·Moblle to T·Moblle $0 .00

02/09/ 16 S:21 PM Incoming ~) 627·9840 T·Moblle to T-Moblle $0.00

02/09/16 5:)1 PM tncom1ng {202) S\3·0810 7 T-MobUe to T-Mobl~ $0.00

02/09/16 5:38 PM to STOCKTON/CA (209} 986-4072 4 T· Moblle to T·Moblle $0 .00

02/09/16 6:53 PM Incoming (222} 612-§227 10 $0 .00

02/09/16 7 :06 PM to STOCKTON/CA !..2.Ql!UlLllil T·Moblle to T-MobUe $0 .00

02/09/16 7: 27 PM to STOCKTON/CA CZ22l J7l-Q~D2 1 T· Moblle to T-Moblle $0 .00

02/09/16 8 :42 PM Incoming C.ll!!l !i l H227 $0.00

02/09/16 8 :47 PM Incoming !2QQ) 222-~lQ§ T-Moblle to T·Moblle $0.00

https://my.1-mobile.com/apps/mytmobile/components/content /c ... =2016-02-05%2000:00:00&endiime=2016-03-04%2000:QO:OO 4 / 30/ 16, S:4 3 PM Page 3 o f 19

EXHIBITB

their residency on papers filed for the 2014 election. Another complaint described an incident when one Board member allegedly interfered with the discipline of a student at Weston Ranch High School (WRHS). The third complaint was lodged against a board member when pictures from an employee's Facebook account were displayed at the January 27, 2015 Board meeting.

The Grand Jury discovered that a complaint had been filed with the California Secretary of State's Office regarding the election issues. That being the appropriate venue for the complaint, the Grand Jury chose not to pursue that issue. Subsequently, the Secretary of State's Office did investigate the complaint and referred the matter to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office. Multiple felony charges were filed against the two trustees, Alexander Bronson and Ashley Drain, on April 23, 2015. Mr. Bronson resigned from the Board of Trustee position on May 11, 2015.

Initial interviews began in March 2015 and revealed there were major problems plaguing MUSD, largely as a result of the behavior of Board members, and particularly increasing since the November 2014 election. Numerous local media reports indicated that recent actions taken by some Board members had riled many constituents, especially in the Weston Ranch community. Subsequent interviews made it clear that numerous District employees were fearful of some trustees. Board meetings had become contentious. Administrators were compelled to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with Board members' demands, especially demands coming from Ms. Drain and Mr. Fant. These two Board members knew that a single board member has no more power than any citizen, however, they used perceived power to inappropriately achieve their ends.

The combination of formal complaints, frequent negative media reports, and early Grand Jury interviews revealed disturbing problems, prompting this investigation.

Method of Investigation

Materials Reviewed • Various newspaper articles from the Manteca Bulletin and The Record • California Education Code • California Penal Code • MUSD By-laws • MUSD agendas and minutes • Various documents, internal emails, and financial records obtained under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) • Contract with James French • Invoices from James French • Sign-in sheets from various schools • California Department of Education data • San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters' documents • Various pages on the California School Board Association web site • Security videos taken at Weston Ranch High School (WRHS)

4

EXHIBITC

Record net.com News worth sharing onlin~

By Roger Phillips

Apnl 23. 2016 2:ooPM

City Council candidate Sam Fant to face felony charges

STOCKTON - Sam Fant, who is running for City Council, is scheduled for anaignmeot early next month in Stockton on felony conspiracy and election fraud charges.

The May 2 bearing date in San Joaquin County Superior Court is only 36 days before voters bead to the polls for tbe June 7 primary.

The 28-year-old Fant serves as a Manteca Unified School Board trustee. He is one of five candidates running for south

Stockton's District 6 City Council seat, which is held by Michael Tubbs, who is running for Stockton mayor.

r-- - ---, L~rint~~e J

Testimony during preliminary bearings for Drain and Bronson earlier this year implicated Fant, Adams said. No trial pan,cipates in a candidates forum

date bas been set for Bronson. Drain's trial is set to begin May IJ. Thursday night. Fant . one of five candtdates running for south Stockton's

"I don't want it to appear we were sitting oo this case against Sam Fant waiting for it to be close to the election for City Council,• Adams said. "It was evidence that came out during preliminary bearings.•

District 6 City Couna l seat. is scheduled

for arra,gnment earty neJCt month in

Stockton on felony conspiracy and Fant said in a telephone interview Friday be intends to continue bis City Council candidacy. In a written statement, election fraud charges. CLIFFORD

Fant called the charges against him "Stockton politics at its complete worst" and blasted District Attorney Tori Verber OTO/THE RECORD

Salazar.

Fant added, "I was told that if I ran for Stockton City Council, that this was going to happen. And sure enough less than 15 hours after I filed my candidacy, I

was contacted by the DA's office. So I can't say that I am SWl>rised, but extremely disappointed that the district attorney would allow a law enforcement agency to engage io political warfare.

"I find it very convenient that the district attorney and my political opponent share the same campaign manager.

"This is a clear attempt to muddy the waters and cast doubt before an election. But Stockton (residents) are tired of the good ol' boys using their influence to

attempt to suppress leaders that challenge the status quo."

Verber Salazar and District 6 candidate Jesus Andrade share the same campaign manager, Jeff Acquistapace.

In a response to Fant, Verber Salazar wrote, "The District Attorney's Office, now, as io the past, charges crimes based oo the facts presented to it and the prevailing law. This office does not base decisions oo race, religion, gender or political aspirations. Any suggestion otherwise is unsupported and without

merit.

"The decision to charge is not taken lightly. Io this case, the decision was made only after evidence surfaced during the course of a separate investigation. The proper venue to detennioe the facts and their truth is io court; that is where we intend to present them.•

Acquistapace also responded.

"This fantasy concocted by Fant is an attempt to deflect attention away from bis problems with the law; Acquistapace wrote. "He needs to own up to bis

responsibilities and stop blaming others for bis criminal activities.·

Voters elected Drain and Bronson to the Manteca Unified board in 2014. Bronson resigned from office in May aod Drain stepped down in August, both amid

allegations they bad used false addresses when filing to run for office.

Fant is alleged to have helped Drain and Bronson get onto the ballot to run for the school board. Adams said Drain and Bronson allegedly listed the same

Manteca address at one point, though neither lived there.

"It was definitely an address that Sam Fant is familiar with,• Adams said.

Adams added, "Information at both preliminary bearings kept coming out suggesting we needed to do au investigation into Sam Fant's involvement."

Fant, a longtime associate of Mayor Anthony Silva, bas been involved in several controversies in recent years.

Three years ago, tbeo-Oty Manager Bob Deis accused Fant of claiming to represent Silva in official city business without the appropriate credentials.

In 2014, court documents revealed Fant was one of three targets in an ongoing Stockton Police Department investigation into illegal Internet gambling. He

was never lllTested nor charged.

A recall effort against Fant in Manteca Unified failed late last year when proponents fell short of collecting enough signatures to put the issue before voters.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I I

I

I

If Fant were to be convict~ on all of the election fraud charges, Adams said be would face a maximum six-year sentence in the County Jail. Adams said Fant

also would forfeit the right to run again for public office.

- Contact reporter Roger Phillips at (209) 546-8299 or rphillips@recordnet.rom. Follow him at recordnet.com/phillipsblog and on nvitter @rphillipsblog.

httpt - .reconlnet.convartlcle/20160423/NEWSJ160429830 =-Print Page -

EXHIBITD

Record net.com NE'\,~ \\Olth \haril'lg onlirw

By Roger Phillips }>nnt Page_:

Record Staff Writer

September 24. 2014 9:ooPM

Manteca Unified's Fant targeted in gambling probe ------------------ ---- -

STOCKTON - Sam Fant, a board member with Manteca Unified, is one of three lfilllels in an ongoing investigation by

the StocJ..100 Police Department and other enforcement agencies into illegal Internet gambling, court documents show.

The 26-year-old Fant bas not been arrested and there are no charges against him, but the case has been referred to the

office of the San Joaquin County District Attorney.

Fant expressed sboclc Wednesday afternoon when told his name appear.; repeatedly in a 16-page •statement of probable cause• filed at San Joaquin County Superior Court and obtained by The Record earlier in the day. He denied

any wrongdoing. Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva, a close associate, expressed equal Slll'J)rise.

"It's the first I've heard of it," Silva said. • As mayor, I know thousands of people in Stockton, but obviously Sam has

been a city plaooiog commissioner, a school board trustee, and he's served oo the Pads and Recreation Commis.5ion and (San Joaquin County) Fair Board.

"This is the first time I'~-e heard of it. In the past in Stockton, people have been mentioned in the paper for potential Sam Fan1

wrongdoing and nothing came of it. It wasn't factual. I'Il reserve my judgment for a future day.·

Fant said, "This is the first I've heard or learned about any of this. Some of these establishments that are operated as Internet cafes bring a negative light and

clientele to our communities. They call them very different names but any business operating illicitly in our city should be closed immediately.·

On Sept. 16, Stockton police officers raided five alleged Internet gambling locations, including one at the downtown University Plaza Waterfront Hotel, where

Silva has lived since 2012.

Officers say they seized vehicles, 6o computers and U.S. currency, and they arrested one of the ill\-estigatioo's targets, 30-)=r-old Aram Mkrtchyan, on illegal gambling charges. Mlatchyan is out on bail. A third lfilllet io the ongoing case is identified in documents as Ivan She,.1:henko.

'"I'bis is still a very active and ongoing criminal investigation involving multiple law enforcement agencies," said Officer Joseph Silva, a spokesman for

Stockton police and no relation to the mayor. "This case has also been sent to the district attorney's office for their review.•

Manteca Unified Superintendent Jason Messer declined comment through a district spokeswoman.

According to court documents chronicling the gambling investigation, Stockton police officers say they have been working the case for 12 mouths.

Among the document's details:

• At 2:30 p.DL on Jan. 29, police say Fant met Mkrtchyan in front of the downtown hotel and that same day Mlatchyao deposited $110,000 in cash into a

Sacramento-area bank.

• Mlatchyan and Fant also were observed together several other times, police say, including once exchanging •a white plastic bag" that contained a lock and chain used to secure one of the alleged gambling sites .

• In the wee hours of the morning oo Feb. 14, police say Fant was in the Fat City Internet Cafe at 2700 E. Country Club Boulevard and ·appeared to be in charge.• Police say be was io the "teller's area· of the busines.,,.

• On numerous occasions, according to the document, Fant practiced "counter ~-eillance• driving techniques, a seeming indication he feared he was being

followed.

At 10 p.m. May 9, police say they were following Fant on Wilson Way near Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boule,,.ard. They say Fant "rapidly turned his car" to get

behind the detective. Police say the detective sped up and Fant chased him oo the Crosstown Freeway at 100 mph. The detective ultimately eluded Fant, police

say.

Marie Reichel, who identified himself as Fant's attorney, said late Wednesday afternoon the evasive action by his client was made because he thought "somebody was trying to rob hiDL •

Fant was oo the dais 18 mouths ago among those standing behind Silva when the mayor held a news conference supporting a law-enforcement sales-tax

measure that ultimately failed as voters approved Measure A. The next month, then-City Manager Bob Deis made a ,-eiled accusation that Fant had interfered in a fire inspection.

Fant said Wednesday he has assisted police multiple times when potential illegal activities were brought to his attention.

"I\-e worked on numerous occasions to notify police of illicit activities, specifically Internet cafes," be added.

Contact reporter Roger Phillips at (209) 546-8299 or rphillips@recordnet.coOL Follow him at recordnelcom/phillipsblog and on Twitter @rphillipsblog.

EXHIBITE

Print This Article

ELECTION FRAUD CHARGE

Fant claims prosecution is politically motivated

Jason Campbell jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com 209-249-3544 April 23, 2016

Page 1 of 3

The third Manteca Unified school board trustee to be charged with election fraud in the last 12 months is claiming that it's an attempt to push him out of the race for Stockton City Council.

Sam Fant, who was elected to the board more than three years ago, received a letter in the mail from the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office this week informing him that he's being charged with two counts of election fraud and conspiracy stemming from the cases of Alexander Bronson and Ashley Drain. Both of whom were elected to the school board and subsequently resigned alter the district attorney pressed charges .

More than five months alter the two unseated incumbents in November of 2014, both were charged with varying counts that centered on the claim that they used fa lse addresses to run for the offices they were elected for.

Fant's name was listed as a reference on both forms, including the one that Drain filed which had Bronson's alleged address written in and then crossed out before the correct one in the correct district was ultimately written in.

According to Fant, high-ranking Stockton politicos told him that if he opted to run for Stockton City Council, that charges against him would be filed as well.

"This is Stockton politics at its complete worst. I was told that if I ran for Stockton City Council that this was going to happen," Fant said in a release. "And sure enough less than 15 hours alter I filed my candidacy, I was contacted by the DA's office. So I can't say that I'm surprised, but extremely disappointed that the District Attorney would allow a law enforcement agency to engage in political warfare.

"I find it very convenient that the District Attorney and my political opponent share the same campaign manager."

Fant continued not to pull punches.

hffn·l/www mAnlPr~hllllPlin r.nm/~Prlinn/1RIArtidP/11'1? nRI 5/20/2016

Page 2 of 3

"This is a clear attempt to muddy the waters and cast doubt before an election," he said. "But Stockton residents are tired of the Good 01' Boys using their influence to attempt to suppress leaders that challenge the status quo."

But he also claims that not only will the charges not scare him out of the race for Stockton council, they won't stop him from the plan that had before finding out that he has to appear in court - that if he loses the race to represent South Stockton that he'll push another four-year term on the Manteca Unified School Board.

Fant has been somewhat of a lightning rod for controversy during his tenure on the board. A scathing San Joaquin County Grand Jury report, which he chalked up to politics at the time, painted him as a bully that didn't have the district's best interest in mind.

But the feeling of being an outsider, Fant claims, started much earlier than that.

Long known as an associate of embattled Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva, Fant said that he was asked by the Stockton City Attorney not to attend his last planning commission meeting before his term expired after he was elected to the Manteca Unified School District board - despite the fact that there was no conflict of interest.

And at one time he landed in some legal hot water.

Just before the 2014 election the Stockton Police Department included Fant's name in court filings after police investigators broke up an illegal gambling ring that the hinted that the elected official may have been involved with it - even noting that when he tailed by officers onto a Stockton freeway he used evasive counter moves to lose his tail. The paperwork described him being in an "employee" and appearing to be in charge of the operation after the men who were eventually arrested left the premises of one of several locations.

His record on the school board, he says, speaks for itself in terms of his dedication to the kids and the community he was elected to represent.

"I have the utmost confidence in my colleagues on the board and they know me very well and I don't believe I would have been elected again to an administrative position if they didn't know who I was and what I stood for," Fant said. "I truly believe that the majority of the board wants to do what is best for kids, and it's evident by their support for the initiative I've shown in the last three-and-a-half years.

"I don't believe that this is going to have an impact on my ability to perform at all. In America you're innocent until proven guilty and I think that Stevie Wonder can see that this is all politics. It's really dirty."

To contact reporter Jason Campbell email jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com or call 209.249.3544.

http:/lwww.mantecabulletin.com/section/38/article/134208/ 5/20/2016